The history of drug/vaccine development has included major advances guided primarily by risk/benefit analyses concerning the innovative agent, not by evidence-based clinical trials (Phase I–IV). Because the approval for new drugs is hindered under the present process, the system requires restructuring. The Phase I/II study period should be more flexible, using the “environment of knowledge” about the new agent, plus risk/benefit assessments. Phase III, as presently constructed, does not add new adverse events data, it provides (...) a narrower profile of drug efficacy than properly done Phase II studies, and placebo-controlled trials continue to raise unresolved ethical and social issues. Phase III studies should be abandoned for most drugs, and substituted with properly powered Phase II doseranging studies plus careful post-marketing surveillance. Phase III should be a penalty for poor drug development, not a regulatory requirement. (shrink)

BackgroundIn this manuscript, we argue that within the context of phase IV, physician-researchers retain their fiduciary obligation to treat the patient-participants.DiscussionWe first clarify why the perspective that research ethics ought to be differentiated from clinical ethics is not applicable in phase IV, and therefore, why therapeutic orientation is most convivial in this phase. Next, assuming that ethics guidelines may be representative of common morality, we show that ethics guidelines see physician-researchers primarily as physicians and only secondarily (...) as researchers. We then elaborate on what a fiduciary obligation is and how some of the obligations are default duties. Lastly, we look at the fiduciary obligation of the physician-researcher in phase IV interventional trials.ConclusionThe fiduciary obligation to treat is not as easily waived as in earlier trials. Assuming the entwinement of research and practice in phase IV, physician-researchers, in collaboration with other researchers, investigators, and research ethics committees, should ensure that in terms of study design, methodology, and research practice, the therapeutic value of the research to the patient-participants is not diminished. (shrink)

Worries about safety of approved drugs have pushed post registration research to become the fastest growing drug research phase. Until recently, phase IV studies were mainly conducted for marketing purposes and run much like a phase III trial—at institutions with experienced investigators and a list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Innovative phase IV studies involve ordinary physicians in research naïve communities. This brings ethical issues familiar to medical research into clinical practice. As a consequence, individual (...) physicians are challenged to protect scientific integrity and to secure the ethical conduct of research. Several ethical issues need to be addressed in the process of developing a scientifically sound and ethically high principled practice of phase IV research.PHASE IVEssential to phase IV research is the focus on how drugs work in the real world. The research goal may be to explore a specific pharmacological effect, to establish the incidence of adverse reactions, or to determine the effects of long-term administration of a drug. They may also be designed to establish a new clinical indication for a drug.1 Subjects may or may not be randomised, and the studies typically involve large numbers of patient-subjects and physicians.Doubts concerning the scientific rigor and clinical value have put postmarketing research in a poor light. However, high quality phase IV research is badly needed to further pharmaceutical science. First, because it can provide reliable data on the effectiveness, safety and optimal use of a drug in treated populations.2 3 In pre-registration clinical trials , a pharmaceutical product is studied under unrealistic circumstances. Under-representation of women and elderly are common and the concomitant use of medicines is usually extremely restrictive in these trials.4 Second, phase IV can provide much needed data for evidence-based …. (shrink)

Commentators on the ethics of translational research find it morally problematic. Types of translational research are said to involve questionable benefits, special risks, additional barriers to informed consent, and severe conflicts of interest. Translational research conducted on the global poor is thought to exploit them and increase international disparities. Some commentators support especially stringent ethical review. However, such concerns are grounded only in pre-approval translational research (now called T1 ). Whether or not T1 has these features, translational research beyond approval (...) ( T2 : phase IV, health services, and implementation research) is unlikely to and, when conducted on the global poor, may support development. Therefore, insofar as T1 is morally problematic, and no independent objections to T2 exist, the ethics of translational research is diverse: while some translational research is problematic, some is not. Funding and oversight should reflect this diversity, and T2 should be encouraged, particularly when conducted among the global poor. (shrink)

In her article, Pascale Hess raises the issue of whether her proposed model may be extrapolated and applied to clinical research fields other than stem cell-based interventions in the brain (SCBI-B) (Hess 2012). Broadly summarized, Hess’s model suggests prioritizing efficacy over safety in phase 1 trials involving irreversible interventions in the brain, when clinical criteria meet the appropriate population suffering from “degenerative brain diseases” (Hess 2012). Although there is a need to reconsider the traditional phase (...) 1 model, especially with respect to first-in-human clinical trials involving novel technologies, the question arises as to whether it is appropriate to advocate for a new model that prioritizes efficacy over safety across all phase 1 clinical research trials involving irreversible interventions in the brain. -/- . (shrink)

The ethical treatment of cancer patientsparticipating in clinical trials requiresthat patients are well-informed about thepotential benefits and risks associated withparticipation. When patients enrolled in phaseI clinical trials report that their chance ofbenefit is very high, this is often taken as evidence of a failure of the informed consent process. We argue, however, that some simple themes from the philosophy of language may make such a conclusion less certain. First, the patient may receive conflicting statements from multiple (...) speakers about the expected outcome of the trial. Patients may be reporting the message they like best. Second, there is a potential problem of multivocality. Expressions of uncertainty of the frequency type can be confused with expressionsof uncertainty of the belief type. Patients may be informed using frequency-type statements and respond using belief-type statements. Third, each speech episode involving the investigator and the patient regarding outcomes may subservemultiple speech acts, some of which may beindirect. For example, a patient reporting ahigh expected benefit may be reporting a beliefabout the future, reassuring family members,and/or attempting to improve his or her outcome by apublic assertion of optimism. These sources oflinguistic confusion should be considered injudging whether the patient's reported expectation isgrounds for a bioethical concern that there hasbeen a failure in the informed consent process. (shrink)

Lowering compensation to research subjects to protect them from “undue inducement” is a misguided attempt to shoehorn a concern about exploitation into the framework of autonomy. We suggest that oversight bodies should be less concerned about undue influence than about exploitation of subjects. Avoiding exploitation in human subjects research requires not only increasing compensation, but enhancing the dignity of research participation.

Relatively little has been written about the ethics of conducting early phase clinical trials involving subjects from the developing world. Below, I analyze ethical issues surrounding one of gene transfer’s most widely praised studies conducted to date: in this study, Italian investigators recruited two subjects from the developing world who were ineligible for standard of care because of economic considerations. Though the study seems to have rendered a cure in these two subjects, it does not appear to (...) have complied with various international guidelines that require that clinical trials conducted in the developing world be responsive to their populations’ health needs. Nevertheless, policies devised to address large scale, late stage trials, such as the AZT short‐course placebo trials, map somewhat awkwardly to early phase studies. I argue that interest in conducting translational research in the developing world, particularly in the context of hemophilia trials, should motivate more rigorous ethical thinking around clinical trials involving economically disadvantaged populations. (shrink)

ABSTRACTRelatively little has been written about the ethics of conducting early phase clinical trials involving subjects from the developing world. Below, I analyze ethical issues surrounding one of gene transfer’s most widely praised studies conducted to date: in this study, Italian investigators recruited two subjects from the developing world who were ineligible for standard of care because of economic considerations. Though the study seems to have rendered a cure in these two subjects, it does not appear to (...) have complied with various international guidelines that require that clinical trials conducted in the developing world be responsive to their populations’ health needs. Nevertheless, policies devised to address large scale, late stage trials, such as the AZT short‐course placebo trials, map somewhat awkwardly to early phase studies. I argue that interest in conducting translational research in the developing world, particularly in the context of hemophilia trials, should motivate more rigorous ethical thinking around clinical trials involving economically disadvantaged populations. (shrink)

Exploratory experiments are widely characterized as experiments that do not test hypotheses. Experiments that do test hypotheses are characterized as confirmatory experiments. Philosophers have pointed out that research programmes can be both confirmatory and exploratory. However, these definitions preclude single experiments being characterized as both exploratory and confirmatory; how can an experiment test and not test a hypothesis? Given the intuition that some experiments are exploratory, some are confirmatory, and some are both, a recharacterization of the relationship between exploratory and (...) confirmatory experimentation is needed. I discuss ‘phase IV’ trials to show what this recharacterization could look like. Phase IV trials can be exploratory and confirmatory insofar as they concurrently test hypotheses and explore for unforeseen phenomena. Even if it is uncontroversial that a single experiment can have multiple aims, the recharacterization of the relationship between exploratory and confirmatory experimentation is still required for these aims to be held together coherently. I offer an alternative characterization of the relationship between exploratory and confirmatory experimentation where the former remains a distinct kind of experimentation but is not characterized as non-hypothesis-testing. (shrink)

What kind of patients may be recruited to early clinical trials of xenotransplantation? This is discussed under the assumption that the risk of viral infection to the public is non-negligible. Furthermore, the conditions imposed by the Helsinki declaration are analysed. The conclusion is that only patients at risk of dying and with no alternative treatment available should be recruited to xenotransplantation trials in the early phase. For some of the less dangerous cell or islet cell xenotransplantation (...) other categories might be recruited. The risk of cell and islet cell xenotransplantation should, however, be weighted against the development of other technologies.In order to safeguard the public, the opt-out clause in the Helsinki declaration should not be fully applied. Legally binding rules on obligatory monitoring and restrictions should be imposed—before clinical trials start. Journal of Medical Ethics. (shrink)

In phase I clinical trials, healthy volunteers are dosed with investigational drugs and subjected to blood draws and other bodily monitoring procedures. In exchange, they are paid. Healthy volunteers are, in a very direct sense, selling access to their bodies for pharmaceutical companies and their associates to run drugs through. In his ethnographic study of socalled professional guinea pigs, Roberto Abadie writes, "Paid volunteers are well aware of the demand for an idealized, perfectly healthy volunteer. They also (...) realize that their body is a valued commodity in clinical trials research". It is perhaps surprising, then, that commodification is little discussed in the bioethics literature on phase I... (shrink)

Biomedical research involving human participants is highly regulated and subject to stringent ethical requirements. Clinical research ethics, regulation and policy have tended to focus almost exclusively on the protection of participants' interests against harms that might result from taking part in research. Less consideration, however, has been given to the interests that patients may themselves have in research participation, even in trials that may be beyond the bounds of current clinical research practice. In this paper, we consider (...) the case of a suggested extension to clinical trial protocols to explore the ethics of participation in ‘risky’ research. We argue that patients may have a strong interest in taking part in research, and that even when greater-than-usual risks may be present, such research can be both ethically and scientifically justified. Finally, we suggest that there might be scope in some cases to assert a right to participate in research, and that the possibility of such a right merits further consideration. (shrink)

Phase I clinical trials are the first stage of testing new pharmaceuticals in humans. The majority of these studies are conducted under controlled, inpatient conditions using healthy volunteers who are paid for their participation. This article draws on an ethnographic study of six phase I clinics in the United States, including 268 semistructured interviews with research staff and healthy volunteers. In it, I argue that an institutional banalization of risk structures the perceptions of research staff and (...) healthy volunteers participating in the studies. For research staff, there are three mechanisms by which risk becomes banal: a perceived homogeneity of studies, Fordist work regimes, and data-centric discourse. For healthy volunteers, repeat study participation contributes to the institutional banalization of risk both through the process of desensitization to risk and the formation of trust in the clinics. I argue that the institutional banalization of risk also renders invisible ethical concerns about exploitation of underprivileged groups in pharmaceutical research. (shrink)

Commentators on the ethics of translational research find it morally problematic. Types of translational research are said to involve questionable benefits, special risks, additional barriers to informed consent, and severe conflicts of interest. Translational research conducted on the global poor is thought to exploit them and increase international disparities. Some commentators support especially stringent ethical review. However, such concerns are grounded only in pre-approval translational research. Whether or not T1 has these features, translational research beyond approval is unlikely to and, (...) when conducted on the global poor, may support development. Therefore, insofar as T1 is morally problematic, and no independent objections to T2 exist, the ethics of translational research is diverse: while some translational research is problematic, some is not. Funding and oversight should reflect this diversity, and T2 should be encouraged, particularly when conducted among the global poor. (shrink)

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) have the potential to advance the conduct of clinical trials, but raise several ethical issues, including obtaining valid informed consent. The debate on the ethical issues resulting from digitalization is predominantly focused on direct risks relating to for example data protection, safety, and data quality. We submit however, that a broader view on ethical aspects of DCTs is needed to touch upon the new challenges that come with the DCT practice. Digitalization has (...) impacts that go beyond its direct purposes, by shaping behaviors, experiences, social relations, and values. We examine four elements of the informed consent procedure that are affected by DCTs, while taking these soft impacts of technologies into account: (i) informing participants and testing understanding, (ii) freedoms in relation to responsibilities and burdens, (iii) trust in participant-researcher relations, and (iv) impacts on the concept of privacy. Our analysis reveals that a broad view is key for optimal conduct of DCTs. In addition, it provides insight into the ethical impacts of DCTs on informed consent. Technologies such as DCTs potentially have profound impacts which are not immediately addressed by the existing regulatory frameworks, but nonetheless important to recognize. These findings can guide future practices of DCTs to foster the important values of clinical research in this novel approach for conducting clinical trials. (shrink)

Unrealistic therapeutic beliefs are very common—the majority of patient-subjects enrol in phase 1 trials seeking and expecting significant medical benefit, even though the likelihood of such benefit has historically proven very low. The high prevalence of therapeutic misestimation and unrealistic optimism in particular has stimulated debate about whether unrealistic therapeutic beliefs in early-phase clinical trials preclude adequate informed consent. We seek here to help resolve this controversy by showing that a crucial determination of when such (...) therapeutic beliefs are ethically problematic turns on whether they are causally linked and instrumental to the motivation to participate in the trial. Thus, in practice, it is ethically incumbent on researchers to determine which understanding and beliefs lead to the participant’s primary motivation for enrolling, not to simply assess understanding, beliefs and motivations independently. We further contend that assessing patient-subjects’ appreciation as a component of informed consent—it is already an established component of decision-making capacity assessments—can help elucidate the link between understanding-beliefs and motivation; appreciation refers to an individual’s understanding of the personal significance of both the medical facts and the experience of trial participation. Therefore, we recommend that: in addition to the usual question, ‘Why do you want to participate in this trial?’, all potential participants should be asked the question: ‘What are you giving up by participating in this trial?’ and researchers should consider the settings in which it may be possible and practical to obtain ‘two-point consent’. (shrink)

This article draws on ethnographic field data collected during an investigation of the informed consent process and AIDS clinical trials. It describes the involvement of care providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants) during the enlistment, or recruitment, phase of the informed consent process. It shows that sometimes care providers are involved in the receipt, evaluation and distribution of information on clinical trials through their interactions with research professionals and patients. It suggests that the involvement of (...) care providers has the potential to influence the informed consent process. Some of the ethical and practice considerations of this are discussed. (shrink)

Participants in clinical research sometimes view participation as therapy or exaggerate potential benefits, especially in phase I or phase II trials. We conducted this study to discover what methods might improve cancer patients’ understanding of early-phase clinical trials. We randomly assigned 130 cancer patients from three U.S. medical centers who were considering enrollment in a phase I or phase II cancer trial to receive either a multimedia intervention or a National Cancer (...) Institute pamphlet explaining the trial and its purpose. Intervention participants were 32 times more likely to believe that the trial’s purpose was to examine safety and 60 % less likely to believe they would experience long-term benefit or cure. There was no difference in enrollment decision. However, while patients’ understanding of the trial’s purpose improved and expectations of long-term benefit diminished, half the respondents still believed they would experience long-term benefit or cure from participation. Therefore, we conclude that multimedia interventions such as this one may help oncologists to explain the risks and benefits of early-phase cancer trials in a way that patients can more easily understand, helping them to make more informed decisions about participation. But further research into other factors that influence patients’ beliefs about the outcome of enrollment is needed, both to modify the interventions and to determine how malleable patient beliefs are. (shrink)

Objectives: There are indications that institutional review board members do not find it easy to assess the risks and benefits in medical experiments, although this is their principal duty. This study examined how IRB members assessed the risk/benefit ratio of a specific phase II breast cancer clinical trial.Participants and methods: The trial was evaluated by means of a questionnaire administered to 43 members of IRBs at six academic hospitals and specialised cancer centres in the Netherlands. The questionnaire addressed: (...) identification and estimation of inconvenience, toxicity, psychosocial distress, and benefits of trial participation to patients; identification and estimation of benefits to future patients and medical science; assessment of the trial’s RBR; and assessment of its ethical acceptability.Results: Most IRB members expected trial participation to involve fairly or very serious inconvenience, fairly severe to sometimes life-threatening toxicity, and serious psychological and social consequences. Conversely, the perceived likelihood of benefits to patients was modest. Most regarded the study as important, and the balance between risks and benefits to be favourable, and believed that the protocol should be approved. The IRB members’ final judgement on the trial’s ethical acceptability was significantly correlated with their RBR assessment of the protocol.Conclusions: Because most patients who participate in clinical trials hope this will prolong their lives, it is suggested that patient information should better describe the anticipated benefits—for example, the likelihood of prolonging life. This would allow patients to make decisions regarding participation based on realistic expectations. (shrink)

Background: One of the ethical imperatives for a valid consent process in clinical medication trials is that the process be guided by and recorded in an informed consent document (ICD). Concerns have been expressed, however, about readability and participant understanding of ICDs, which are often 10–20 pages long. Objective measures of readability and understanding have been used to support these concerns in several articles, but surprisingly the voice of trial participants on ICDs has not been heard in previous (...) studies. Hence, this study compares participants' subjective views on readability and their understanding of ICDs with those ICDs' objective readability scores. It also evaluates whether family, friends, and additional aids would foster better understanding of the ICD. Methods: Sixty current trial participants rated the readability and their understanding of deidentified standard ICDs. These had been sourced from two multicenter international Phase III trials on medication for diabetes mellitus and cancer. Results: Less than 10% of participants considered the ICDs difficult to read or difficult to understand in spite of objective readability scores at levels of about 12th grade education, but about a quarter considered the ICDs to be too technical. Participants gave mixed responses about friends or family members helping or the need for videos, pictures, additional reading material, and frequently answered questions (FAQ) sheets as an aid to their understanding. Conclusions: These findings suggest individual clinical trial participants should be engaged on their views of an ICD, for doing so is part of informed consent as a process rather than consent being merely focused on written information. Such participant-specific engagement should guide whether family and friends, videos, pictures, additional reading material, and FAQ sheets would be of assistance in improving understanding. (shrink)

Optogenetics is being optimistically presented in contemporary media for its unprecedented capacity to control cell behavior through the application of light to genetically modified target cells. As such, optogenetics holds obvious potential for application in a new generation of invasive medical devices by which to potentially provide treatment for neurological and psychiatric conditions such as Parkinson's disease, addiction, schizophrenia, autism and depression. Design of a first-in-human optogenetics experimental trial has already begun for the treatment of blindness. Optogenetics trials involve (...) a combination of highly invasive genetic and electronic interventions that results in irreversible and permanent modifications of an individual's nervous system. Given its novelty, its uncertain benefit to patients, and its unique risk profile of irreversible physiological alteration, optogenetics requires a reassessment of the ethical challenges for protecting human participants in clinical trials, particularly at formative stages of clinical evaluation. This study explores the evolving ethical issues surrounding optogenetics’ potential harm to participants within trial design, especially focusing on whether Phase 1 trials should incorporate efficacy as well as safety endpoints in ways that are fair and respectful to research trial participants. (shrink)

Most phase III clinical trials today are explanatory. Because explanatory, or efficacy, trials test hypotheses under “ideal” conditions, they are not well suited to providing guidance on decisions made in most clinical care contexts. Pragmatic trials, which test hypotheses under “usual” conditions, are often better suited to this task. Yet, pragmatic, or effectiveness, trials are infrequently carried out. This mismatch between the design of clinical trials and the needs of health care (...) professionals is frustrating for everyone involved, and explains some of the challenges inherent in attempts to enhance knowledge translation and encourage evidence-based practice. The situation is more than simply frustrating, however; it is potentially unethical. Clinical trials must be socially valuable in order to (1) warrant the risks they impose on human research subjects and (2) fairly and efficiently assess new clinical interventions. Most bioethicists would agree that trials that have no social value, for instance, because their results do not have the potential to advance clinical care, should not be performed. What is less widely appreciated is that given limited research resources, trials that are more socially valuable should be preferred to trials that are less socially valuable when all else is equal. With respect to clinical trial design, I argue that while explanatory trials often have some social value, many have less social value than their pragmatic counterparts. On the basis of this general ethical assessment, I provide a preliminary defense of the position that clinical researchers should aim to conduct pragmatic trials, that is, that researchers face a burden of justification related to any idealizing elements added to trial designs. (shrink)

For many rare diseases, the availability of effective interventions is limited or non-existent. In this context, clinical research evaluating emerging interventions may be the only potentially “the...

In this article, the authors present an ethnography of biomedical knowledge production and science collaboration when they take place in developing country contexts. The authors focus on the arrival of international clinical trials to Sri Lanka and provide analysis of what was described as one of the first multisited trials in the country, a pharmaceutical company sponsored, phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial carried out between 2009 and 2010. Using interviews with those who conducted the (...) trial and six months of participant observation at the trial hospital, the authors describe the work that goes on to perform trials according to international standards. The article describes what happens when a randomized controlled trial encounters existing epistemic virtues and documents the impacts on ideas of authority, expertise and doctor–patient relationships found in Sri Lankan medicine. (shrink)

Statisticians in medicine can disagree on appropriate methodology applicable to the design and analysis of clinical trials. So called Bayesians and frequentists both claim ethical superiority. This paper, by defining and then linking together various dichotomies, argues there is a place for both statistical camps. The choice between them depends on the phase of clinical trial, disease prevalence and severity, but supremely on the ethics underlying the particular trial. There is always a tension present between physicians (...) primarily obligated to their own patients (the weight of 'individual ethics') and ethical committees responsible for the scientific merit of the trial and its long-term implications ('collective ethics'). Individual ethics, it is proposed, favour the Bayesian approach; collective ethics, the frequentist. Though in some situations the choice appears clear-cut, there remain other where both methodologies can be appropriate. (shrink)

Ethical issues arise for nurses involved in all phases of clinical trials regardless of whether they are caregivers, research nurses, trial co-ordinators or principal investigators. Potential problem areas centre on nurses’ moral obligation related to methodological issues as well as the notions of beneficence/non-maleficence and autonomy. These ethical concerns can be highly upsetting to nurses if they are not addressed, so it is imperative that they are discussed fully prior to the initiation of a trial. Failure to resolve (...) these issues can place both the conduct and the results of research in jeopardy. (shrink)

This paper critically examines a particular strategy for resolving the central ethical dilemma associated with randomized clinical trials (RCTs) — the “community equipoise” strategy (CE). The dilemma is that RCTs appear to violate a physician's duty to choose that therapy which there is most reason to believe is in the patient's best interest, randomizing patients even once evidence begins to favor one treatment. The community equipoise strategy involves the suggestion that our judgment that neither treatment is to be (...) preferred (that there obtains a state of “equipoise”) is to be assessed according to a community rather than an individual standard. Thus, though a physician may personally believe that there is some reason to prefer one treatment, patients can legitimately be randomized if there remains disagreement in the community of medical professionals. Rationales in favor of this conception include the following: (i) medical knowledge is best understood as residing in the community, (ii) the judgments of others count as evidence, and so should change one's own opinion, (iii) subjects would not be better off outside the trial, and (iv) the point of any trial is the resolution of dispute in the medical community. I critically examine these rationales and argue that they are insufficient. Amongst the problems are tensions between various of these underlying rationales, and important ambiguities in just what the CE criterion is to amount to. Finally, I argue that even if use of CE was justified, it would not justify carrying out RCTs anywhere near long enough to discharge our duty to gain reliable knowledge on which to base safe and effective medical practice. Hence, we need some different justification for carrying out RCTs. (shrink)

Clinical trials in developing countries are often beset by ethical problems that would be considered unresolvable in countries like Australia and the U.S. Nevertheless, such trials continue to go ahead throughout Asia, Africa and South America, and are often conducted in ways that could be considered to be unethical. In this article I discuss two issues, focussing on an HIV preventative trial of a vaginal gel, the Nonoxynol 9 phase three trial being held in Kenya. The (...) first of these is what makes such a trial unethical given that it has approval from the WHO and seemingly conforms with acceptable standards of consent. The second issue involves using material from such trials, if we accept that they were conducted unethically. (shrink)

Nanomedicine is a rapidly growing field in the academic as well as commercial arena. While some had predicted nanomedicine sales to reach $20.1 billion in 2011, the actual growth was much more rapid, with the global nanomedicine market being valued at $53 billion in 2009, and forecast to increase at an annual growth rate of 13.5% to reach more than $100 billion in 2014. In 2006, more than 130 nanotechnology-based drugs and delivery systems had entered preclinical, clinical, or commercial (...) development. The European Medicines Agency reviewed 18 marketing authorization applications for nanomedicines in 2010. In 2011, 22 drugs that had been approved by the FDA, and 87 Phase I and Phase II clinical trials were listed in the U.S. National Institutes of Health data base, www.clinicaltrials.gov. Although the fastest growing areas of nanomedicine are applications in medical imaging and diagnosis using contrast-enhancing agents, most nanomedicine research and commercialization is in the area of cancer drug therapy, including nano gold shells. (shrink)

Reduced Environmental Stimulation Therapy (REST) alters the balance of sensory input to the nervous system by systematically attenuating sensory signals from visual, auditory, thermal, tactile, vestibular, and proprioceptive channels. Previous research from our group has shown that REST via floatation acutely reduces anxiety and blood pressure while simultaneously heightening interoceptive awareness in clinically anxious populations. Anorexia nervosa (AN) is an eating disorder characterized by elevated anxiety, distorted body representation, and abnormal interoception, raising the question of whether REST might positively impact (...) these symptoms. However, this approach has never been studied in eating disorders and it is unknown whether exposure to REST might worsen AN symptoms. To examine these possibilities we conducted an open-label study to investigate the safety and tolerability of REST in AN. We also explored the impact of REST on affective symptoms, body image disturbance, and interoception. Twenty-one partially weight-restored AN outpatients completed a protocol involving four sequential sessions of REST: reclining in a zero-gravity chair, floating in an open pool, and two sessions of floating in an enclosed pool. All sessions were 90 minutes, approximately one week apart. We measured orthostatic blood pressure before and immediately after each session (primary outcome), in addition to collecting blood pressure readings every 10 minutes during the session using a wireless waterproof system as a secondary outcome measure. Each participant's affective state, awareness of interoceptive sensations, and body image was assessed before and after every session (exploratory outcomes). There was no evidence of orthostatic hypotension following floating, and no adverse events (primary outcome). Secondary analyses revealed that REST induced statistically significant reductions in blood pressure, anxiety and negative affect, heightened awareness of cardiorespiratory but not gastrointestinal sensations, and reduced body image dissatisfaction. The findings from this initial trial suggest that individuals with AN can safely tolerate the physical effects of REST via floatation. Future randomized controlled trials will need to investigate whether these initial observations of improved anxiety, interoception, and body image disturbance can be effectively extended to acutely ill AN populations. (shrink)

Regulating clinical trials for testing new drugs is fraught with risk. Misregulation can slow development of innovative and useful new drugs, but in other ways misregulation can foster trials that are inefficient and unethical, driven by commercial rather than scientific ends, and that can harm patients. In this paper, we argue not for more but for better regulation, based on the goal of rapidly producing innovative and safe products that represent significant advances in medical care. Data on (...) industry-funded, late-stage clinical trials demonstrate an urgent need for dramatic changes in how these trials are designed, conducted, and analyzed. On the one hand, current patent rules can dissuade development of innovative new products with smaller markets and press trial designers to create positive results too rapidly. But at the same time, numerous studies show that when the pharmaceutical industry sponsors clinical trials, the results are systematically biased in favor of the sponsor's product, often to the detriment of patients and the public. The reasons for this bias are both complex and unavoidable, and the ways in which clinical trial design, conduct, and reporting can be inappropriately influenced are so varied and nuanced, that efforts to manage this conflict of interest and prevent harms are inevitably unsuccessful. Instead, we conclude such conflict should be avoided and a strong firewall should exist between drug developers and the final stages of clinical testing in humans. All financial support for phase III clinical trials should pass through a public-private partnership organization — perhaps tied to a broader clinical effectiveness research enterprise — which would be charged with designing, funding, and monitoring late-stage human clinical trials of new pharmaceutical products. (shrink)

Background We report a randomised controlled clinical trial of neurofeedback therapy intervention for ADHD/ADD in adults. We focus on internal mechanics of neurofeedback learning, to elucidate the primary role of cortical self-regulation in neurofeedback. We report initial results; more extensive analysis will follow. Methods Trial has two phases: intervention and follow-up. The intervention consisted of neurofeedback treatment, including intake and outtake measurements, using a waiting-list control group. Treatment involved $\sim$40 hour-long sessions 2-5 times per week. Training involved either theta/beta (...) or sensorimotor-rhythm regimes, adapted by adding a novel 'inverse-training' condition to promote self-regulation. Follow-up (ongoing) will consist of self-report and executive function tests. Setting Intake and outtake measurements were conducted at University of Helsinki. Treatment was administered at partner clinic Mental Capital Care, Helsinki. Randomisation We randomly allocated half the sample then adaptively allocated the remainder to minimise baseline differences in prognostic variables. Blinding Waiting-list control design meant trial was not blinded. Participants 54 adult Finnish participants (mean age 36 years; 29 females) were recruited after screening by psychiatric review. 44 had ADHD diagnoses, 10 had ADD. Measurements Symptoms were assessed by computerised attention test (T.O.V.A.) and self-report scales, at intake and outtake. Performance during neurofeedback trials was recorded. Results Participants were recruited and completed intake measurements during summer 2012, before assignment to treatment and control, September 2012. Outtake measurements ran April-August 2013. After dropouts, 23 treatment and 21 waiting-list participants remained for analysis. Initial analysis showed that, compared to waiting-list control, neurofeedback promoted improvement of self-reported ADHD symptoms, but did not show transfer of learning to T.O.V.A. Comprehensive analysis will be reported elsewhere. Trial Registration "Computer Enabled Neuroplasticity Treatment (CENT)", ISRCTN13915109. Partly funded by Finnish science agency TEKES, project #440078. (shrink)

In contrast to attempts that have been made to measure the clarity of reporting of the methods of clinical trials in journal articles, we report here an attempt to measure the accuracy of methods reporting. We focus in this article on eligibility criteria as a test case for the reporting of clinical trial methods. We examined the reporting of eligibility criteria in the protocol, methods paper (if applicable), journal article, and Clinical Alert for articles appearing in (...) print between January 1988 and September 1994 for which a Clinical Alert had been issued. Eligibility criteria were further classified into five categories in order to examine the content of information loss, if any. On average, 82% of protocol eligibility criteria were reported in methods papers. Journal articles and Clinical Alerts fared somewhat worse: 63% of criteria were reported in journal articles, 19% in Clinical Alerts. In all three categories of medical communication, the reporting of criteria that defined the study disease tended to be complete; reporting of criteria relating to trial precision, patient safety, legal and ethical concerns, and administrative considerations, was not complete. We found that criteria for clinical trial eligibility are frequently under-reported in medical communications. Moreover, some of the criteria omitted are of considerable clinical importance. We suggest that in the design phase of clinical trials, proposed eligibility criteria be scrutinized closely. Those criteria that survive this scrutiny and that have clinical import must be reported upon fully and accurately when communicating trial results. (shrink)

We explored the comprehension of the informed consent in 77 cancer patients previously enrolled in randomised phase II or phase III clinical trials, between March and July 2011, at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milano. We asked participants to complete an ad hoc questionnaire and analysed their answers. Sixty-two per cent of the patients understood the purpose and nature of the trial they were participating in; 44% understood the study procedures and 40% correctly listed at (...) least one of the major risks or complications related to their participation in the trial. We identified three factors associated with comprehension of the informed consent: age, education and type of tumour/investigator team. We suggest several possible improvements of how to obtain informed consent that will increase patient awareness, as well as the validity and effectiveness of the clinical trials. (shrink)

Stem cells derived from pluripotent cells offer the hope of new treatments for diseases for which current therapy is inadequate. Clinical trials are essential in developing effective and safe stem cell therapies and fulfilling this promise. However, such clinical trials raise ethical issues that are more complex than those raised in clinical trials using drugs, cord blood stem cells, or adult stem cells. Several clinical trials are now being carried out with stem (...) cells derived from pluripotent cells, and many more can be expected in light of the rapid scientific progress in the field.Degenerative neurological diseases are desirable targets for stem cell clinical trials. The FDA has approved Phase 1 clinical trials of neural stem cell transplantation for Batten Disease, Pelizaeus-Merzbacher Disease, and spinal cord injury. In Parkinson Disease, stem cell transplantation could correct the primary pathophysiological defect — inadequate levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Current treatment is unsatisfactory in late-stage PD. (shrink)

This paper addresses psychological factors that might interfere with informed consent on the part of stable patients as potential early-phase clinical trial participants. Thirty-six semistructured interviews with patients who had either diabetes or gout were conducted. We investigated stable patients’ attitudes towards participating in a fictitious first-in-human trial of a novel intervention. We focused on an in-depth analysis of those statements and explanations that indicated the existence of psychological factors impairing decision-making capacity. Three main themes emerged: insufficient comprehension (...) of the inherent logic of clinical trials, the recourse to trust over comprehension, and visceral factors that override deliberative process. Overall, our results indicate a limited psychological capacity on the part of stable patients to meet the requirements of informed consent as set by Declaration of Helsinki. A redesigned informed consent procedure should take account of these psychological realities. (shrink)

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play a critical gatekeeping role in clinical trials. This role is meant to ensure that only those trials that meet certain ethical thresholds proceed through their gate. Two of these thresholds are that the potential benefits of trials are reasonable in relation to risks and that trials are capable of producing a requisite amount of social value. While one ought not expect perfect execution by RECs of their gatekeeping role, one should (...) expect routine success in it. This article reviews a range of evidence showing that substantial numbers of ethically tainted trials are receiving REC approvals. Many of the trials are early phase trials that evidence shows have benefits that may not be reasonable compared with their risks and many others are later trials that evidence shows may lack sufficient social value. The evidence pertains to such matters as methodologically inadequate preclinical studies incapable of supporting the inferences that REC members must make about the prospects for potential benefit needed to offset the risks in early phase trials and sponsorship bias that can cause improperly designed, conducted, analysed and reported later phase trials. The analysis of the evidence makes clear that REC practices need to be strengthened if they are to adequately fulfil their gatekeeping role. The article also explores options that RECs could use in order to improve their gatekeeping function. (shrink)

Clinical trials of novel agents often present several layers of ethical challenge. Because time and resources for ethical and safety review are limited, how investigators, IRBs, and regulators allocate attention to a trial's various safety dimensions itself represents a critical ethical question. In what follows, I use the example of a Parkinson's disease gene transfer trial to show how risks involving unknown probabilities or outcomes (ambiguity), might sometimes draw attention away from risks that involve known probabilities or outcomes. (...) This potentially undermines the goal of ‘systematic and nonarbitrary analysis of risk’ during ethical review. To counteract the possible effects of such attention biases, I propose that reviewers develop ‘cognitive aids’ like lists and, where appropriate, set aside time to discuss non-ambiguous risks. I also propose further research for addressing and understanding how attention allocation, emotion, and ambiguity influence ethical decision-making. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, (...) and participant-related issues. The discussion is based on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, (...) and participant-related issues. The discussion is based on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, (...) and participant-related issues. The discussion is based on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, (...) and participant-related issues. The discussion is based on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

Many potential therapeutic agents are discarded before they are tested in humans. These are not quack medications. They are drugs and other interventions that have been developed by responsible scientists in respectable companies or universities and are often backed up by publications in peer-reviewed journals. These possible treatments might ease suffering and prolong the lives of innumerable patients, yet they have been put aside. In this paper, we outline a novel mechanism—the Plutocratic Proposal—to revive such neglected research and fund early (...) phase clinical trials. The central idea of the Proposal is that any patient who rescues a potential therapeutic agent from neglect by funding early phase clinical trials should be offered a place on the trial. (shrink)