A New Ethical Framework for Assessing the Unique Challenges of Fetal Therapy Trials

New fetal therapies offer important prospects for improving health. However, having to consider both the fetus and the pregnant woman makes the risk-benefit analysis of fetal therapy trials challenging. Regulatory guidance is limited, and proposed ethical frameworks are overly restrictive or permissive. We propose a new ethical framework for fetal therapy research. First, we argue that considering only biomedical benefits fails to capture all relevant interests. Thus, we endorse expanding the considered benefits to include evidence-based psychosocial effects of fetal therapies. Second, we reject the commonly proposed categorical risk and/or benefit thresholds for assessing fetal therapy research (e.g., only for life-threatening conditions). Instead, we propose that the individual risks for the pregnant woman and the fetus should be justified by the benefits for them and the study's social value. Studies that meet this overall proportionality criterion but have mildly unfavorable risk-benefit ratios for pregnant women and/or fetuses may be acceptable.

Principles of designing a clinical trial: optimizing chances of trial success

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical trials are essential to advance health care and develop new therapies. In this review we discuss the underlying principles of clinical trial design with an emphasis on assessing design risks that lead to trial failure as well as negative trials. While of general interest, this is perhaps particularly timely for the neuromodulation community, given the paucity of well-designed trials in the field. We give some examples from the phantom limb pain (PLP) literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

It is critical to gather as much preliminary data as possible and to know how to interpret it in order to choose an appropriate trial design. Therefore, the investigator needs to effectively assess the likely trial design risk/benefit ratio with a view to maximizing the chance of a meaningful outcome, whether this outcome rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis. This analysis is especially important in a complex and heterogeneous disorder such as PLP, which has had many negative trials.

SUMMARY

We discuss the factors pertaining to a strong trial design benefit/risk assessment, how late trial phases require greater support from preliminary data, how to design trials to minimize risks, maximize benefits, and optimize internal validity as well as the chances of a positive outcome. We highlight the need for investigators to incorporate best practice in trial design to increase the chances of success, to always anticipate unexpected challenges during the trial.

The risk-benefit task of research ethics committees: an evaluation of current approaches and the need to incorporate decision studies methods

BACKGROUND

Research ethics committees (RECs) are tasked to assess the risks and the benefits of a trial. Currently, two procedure-level approaches are predominant, the Net Risk Test and the Component Analysis.

DISCUSSION

By looking at decision studies, we see that both procedure-level approaches conflate the various risk-benefit tasks, i.e., risk-benefit assessment, risk-benefit evaluation, risk treatment, and decision making. This conflation makes the RECs' risk-benefit task confusing, if not impossible. We further realize that RECs are not meant to do all the risk-benefit tasks; instead, RECs are meant to evaluate risks and benefits, appraise risk treatment suggestions, and make the final decision.

CONCLUSION

As such, research ethics would benefit from looking beyond the procedure-level approaches and allowing disciplines like decision studies to be involved in the discourse on RECs' risk-benefit task.