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

Learning healthcare systems in cardiology: A qualitative interview study on ethical dilemmas of a learning healthcare system

Background

Implementation of an LHS in cardiology departments presents itself with ethical challenges, including ethical review and informed consent. In this qualitative study, we investigated stakeholders' attitudes toward ethical issues regarding the implementation of an LHS in the cardiology department.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study using 35 semi-structured interviews and 5 focus group interviews with 34 individuals. We interviewed cardiologists, research nurses, cardiovascular patients, ethicists, health lawyers, epidemiologists/statisticians and insurance spokespersons.

Results

Respondents identified different ethical obstacles for the implementation of an LHS within the cardiology department. These obstacles were mainly on ethical oversight in LHSs; in particular, informed con sent and data ownership were discussed. In addition, respondents reported on the role of patients in LHS. Respondents described the LHS as a possibility for patients to engage in both research and care. While the LHS can promote patient engagement, patients might also be reduced to their data and are therefore at risk, according to respondents.

Conclusions

Views on the ethical dilemmas of a LHSs within cardiology are diverse. Similar to the literary debate on oversight, there are different views on how ethical oversight should be regulated. This study adds to the literary debate on oversight by highlighting that patients wish to be informed about the learning activities within the LHS they participate in, and that they wish to actively contribute by sharing their data and identifying learning goals, provided that informed consent is obtained.

Empowering local research ethics review of antibacterial mass administration research

BACKGROUND

Recent studies using mass drug administration (MDA) of antibiotics to entire communities have focused global attention on the unique ethical challenges of MDA of antibiotics in research and public health interventions. However, there is no specific guidance for Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to review such trials. We surveyed the literature to identify the unique ethical challenges and to strengthen the competencies of RECs or IRBs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their ethical reviews of these trials.

METHODS

We employed a desk review. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, combining terms for "mass drug administration" with terms for "research ethics committees," "institutional review boards," and "ethics." We reviewed citations of search results to retrieve additional articles. Only articles published and indexed in the above databases up to 6 January 2022 in English were included. Abstracts (without full articles), books and articles that had exclusive veterinary and environmental focus were excluded. We synthesized the literature to identify particularly challenging ethical issues relevant to antibacterial MDA trials in LMICs.

RESULTS

The most challenging ethical issues can be categorised into four broad domains: determining the social value of MDA, assessing risks and benefits, engaging all stakeholders meaningfully, and study design-related ethical challenges. These four domains interact and impact each other. Together, they reveal the need for RECs/IRBs to review MDA studies through a broader lens than that of clinical trials per se. From our findings, we propose a framework to guide the RECs and IRBs in LMICs to perform the initial and continuing review of antibiotic MDA trials. We also recommend strengthening the competencies of LMIC RECs or IRBs through ongoing training and collaboration with RECs or IRBs from high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

REC/IRB review of research using MDA of antibiotics plays a critical role in assuring the ethical conduct of MDA studies. Local RECs/IRBs should be empowered to review MDA studies comprehensively and competently in order to advance scientific knowledge about MDA and promote improved global health.

Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase 'ethical challenge(s)' appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature.

METHODS

Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining 'ethical challenge(s)' in any context, extracting data on definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021.

RESULTS

393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to 'ethical challenge(s)' within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s)', with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃ ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT₃ RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK₁ RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT₃ RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK₁ RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK₁ ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK₁ RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK₁ RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Participants' written informed consent in low-risk pragmatic clinical trials with medicines

Introduction: An important gap within modern medicine is the lack of enough comparative effectiveness research of marketed medicines. Low-risk pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) are those conducted resembling usual clinical practice that poses no or minimal incremental risk compared with normal clinical practice.Areas covered: This review addresses one important hurdle in the conduct of low-risk pRCTs: the need to seek participants' written informed consent.Expert opinion: The CIOMS ethical guidelines consider that any research that (a) would not be feasible or practicable to carry out without the waiver or modification, (b) has important social value, and (c) poses no more than minimal risks to participants, and that is approved by the relevant research ethics committee, could be conducted without participants' consent. It is clear that these provisions are applicable to some low-risk RCTs. Recently a research on the EU-CTR registry showed that only 2% of all ongoing phase 4 RCTs could have fulfilled the CIOMS provisions following the investigators' assessment. The EU clinical trial regulation - and that of other jurisdictions - should be debated on the suitableness of the conduct with an alteration or waiver of participants' consent of those low-risk pRCTs that fulfill the three CIOMS provisions.

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.

Improving the relevance of randomised trials to primary care: a qualitative study investigating views towards pragmatic trials and the PRECIS-2 tool

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic trials have been suggested as a way to improve the relevance of clinical trial results to practice. PRECIS-2 (Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2) is a trial design tool which considers how pragmatic a trial is across a number of domains. It is not known whether a pragmatic approach to all PRECIS-2 domains leads to results being more relevant to primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate the views of people with influence on primary care practice towards the design of randomised trials, pragmatic approaches to trial design, and the PRECIS-2 domains.

METHODS

We carried out semi-structured interviews with people who influence practice in primary care in the UK. A thematic analysis was undertaken using the framework approach.

RESULTS

We conducted individual or small group interviews involving an elite sample of 17 individuals. We found that an exclusively pragmatic approach to randomised trials may not always make the results of trials more applicable to primary care. For example, it may be better to have less flexibility in the way interventions are delivered in randomised trials than in practice. In addition, an appropriate balance needs to be struck when thinking about levels of resourcing and the intensity of steps needed to improve adherence in a trial. Across other aspects of a trial's design, for example the population and trial setting, a pragmatic approach was viewed as more appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

To maximize the relevance of research directed at primary care, trials should be conducted with the same populations and settings that are found in primary care. Across other aspects of trials it is not always necessary to match the conditions found in practice.

Stakeholder views regarding ethical issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: study protocol

Background

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) trial designs exist on an explanatory-pragmatic spectrum, depending on the degree to which a study aims to address a question of efficacy or effectiveness. As conceptualized by Schwartz and Lellouch in 1967, an explanatory approach to trial design emphasizes hypothesis testing about the mechanisms of action of treatments under ideal conditions (efficacy), whereas a pragmatic approach emphasizes testing effectiveness of two or more available treatments in real-world conditions. Interest in, and the number of, pragmatic trials has grown substantially in recent years, with increased recognition by funders and stakeholders worldwide of the need for credible evidence to inform clinical decision-making. This increase has been accompanied by the onset of learning healthcare systems, as well as an increasing focus on patient-oriented research. However, pragmatic trials have ethical challenges that have not yet been identified or adequately characterized. The present study aims to explore the views of key stakeholders with respect to ethical issues raised by the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. It is embedded within a large, four-year project that seeks to develop guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. As a first step, this study will address important gaps in the current empirical literature with respect to identifying a comprehensive range of ethical issues arising from the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. By opening up a broad range of topics for consideration within our parallel ethical analysis, we will extend the current debate, which has largely emphasized issues of consent, to the range of ethical considerations that may flow from specific design choices.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (e.g. trialists, methodologists, lay members of study teams, bioethicists, and research ethics committee members), across multiple jurisdictions, identified based on their known experience and/or expertise with pragmatic trials.

Discussion

We expect that the study outputs will be of interest to a wide range of knowledge users including trialists, ethicists, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, healthcare policymakers, research funders and patient groups. All publications will adhere to the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0332-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Registry-based randomised clinical trial: efficient evaluation of generic pharmacotherapies in the contemporary era

Randomised clinical trials are the gold standard for testing the effectiveness of clinical interventions. However, increasing complexity and associated costs may limit their application in the investigation of key cardiovascular knowledge gaps such as the re-evaluation of generic pharmacotherapies. The registry-based randomised clinical trial (RRCT) leverages data sampling from nationwide quality registries to facilitate high participant inclusion rates at comparably low costs and, therefore, may offer a mechanism by which such clinical questions may be answered. To date, a number of studies have been conducted using such trial designs, but uncritical use of the RRCT design may lead to erroneous conclusions. The current review provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the RRCT, as well as provides an exploratory example of how a trial may be designed to test the long-term effectiveness of beta blockers in patients with myocardial infarction who have preserved left ventricular systolic function.

Big Data and Dementia: Charting the Route Ahead for Research, Ethics, and Policy

Emerging trends in pervasive computing and medical informatics are creating the possibility for large-scale collection, sharing, aggregation and analysis of unprecedented volumes of data, a phenomenon commonly known as big data. In this contribution, we review the existing scientific literature on big data approaches to dementia, as well as commercially available mobile-based applications in this domain. Our analysis suggests that big data approaches to dementia research and care hold promise for improving current preventive and predictive models, casting light on the etiology of the disease, enabling earlier diagnosis, optimizing resource allocation, and delivering more tailored treatments to patients with specific disease trajectories. Such promissory outlook, however, has not materialized yet, and raises a number of technical, scientific, ethical, and regulatory challenges. This paper provides an assessment of these challenges and charts the route ahead for research, ethics, and policy.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 4. Informed consent

The GetReal consortium of the Innovative Medicines Initiative aims to develop strategies to incorporate real-world evidence earlier into the drug life cycle to better inform health care decision makers on the comparative risks and benefits of new drugs. Pragmatic trials are currently explored as a means to generate such evidence in routine care settings. The traditional informed consent model for randomized clinical trials has been argued to pose substantial hurdles to the practicability of pragmatic trials: it would lead to recruitment difficulties, reduced generalizability of the results, and selection bias. The present article analyzes these challenges and discusses four proposed alternative informed consent models: integrated consent, targeted consent, broadcast consent, and a waiver of consent. These alternative consent models each aim at overcoming operational and methodological challenges, while still providing patients all the relevant information they need to make informed decisions. Each consent model, however, relies on different attitudes toward the principle of respect for persons and the related duty to inform patients as well as represents different views on whether the common good demands moral duties from patients. Such normative consequences of modifying consent requirements should be at least acknowledged and ought to be assessed in light of the validity of empirical claims.