Ethics & human research最新文献

The Covid-19 pandemic has raised a range of complex challenges for the research community in the United States. This essay uses Covid-19 as a model pandemic illness to consider two such issues that have yet to be fully explored in the ethics literature: first, whether the informed consent process should include a discussion of pandemic risks and, if so, how precisely these risks should be conveyed to potential research participants and, second, whether and under what circumstances vaccination status should be taken into consideration when enrolling subjects in non-pandemic-related studies during a pandemic.

Guidelines from the Office for Human Research Protections regarding categories of research that institutional review boards (IRBs) may review through expedited procedures limit the volume of blood that can be obtained from research participants for minimal risk research purposes. As defined by the Common Rule, minimal risk research is research in which the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated are not greater than the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort encountered from routine clinical tests. For this study, we considered the volume of remnant blood following routine clinical tests in light of the current definition of minimal risk in research. Conducted at a single institution, this was a prospective cross-sectional study that evaluated blood draws from 122 patients. The median daily remnant blood volume was 11.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 12.3, 15.2) ml for all patients and 12.9 (IQR: 13.1, 16.9) ml for patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Our findings regarding daily remnant blood volume suggest that the currently allowable blood-volume limits to qualify for expedited review or to qualify as not more than minimal risk research involving blood draws from nonhealthy adults are less than what patients experience in routine medical testing. These findings support permitting an increase in the allowable blood-volume limits to meet the regulatory definition of minimal risk research for obtaining expedited IRB review of studies in which blood samples will be collected.

The prevailing approach to enrolling decisionally impaired adults in clinical research is to rely on permission from a default surrogate, one identified by law rather than by the prospective research participant. Reliance on a surrogate transfers the focus of ethical protection from a researcher-participant relationship to a researcher-surrogate relationship; the selection and role of the surrogate are therefore important. The Common Rule defers to state law governing default surrogate consent to research, but most states have no such law; for those states, the Common Rule defers to institutional policy. I reviewed twenty-five of the study sites with the highest National Institutes of Health funding levels to elaborate the content of institutional review board (IRB) policies and compare those to a suggested paradigm for ethically defensible policies. My findings suggest that IRB policies provide inadequate protection because they recognize surrogates who lack knowledge of the subject's current values and preferences without imposing adequate additional safeguards.

Should research ethics scholars, clinical investigators, and human research professionals read a thick book by a moral philosopher on the foundations of research ethics? Absolutely. Why? Because everyone who has tried to figure out how research ethics and regulatory compliance fit together, or tried to keep up with the vast array of regulations, guidance documents, educational materials, and scholarly literature, already knows that the human research protections system is mined with contradictions, gaps, and confusions. It holds together well enough, but many dedicated folks have long struggled to MacGyver rickety spots of theory and practice known to be problematic. For the Common Good: Philosophical Foundations of Research Ethics, by Alex John London, comes to the rescue, offering an eloquently structured, amply justified, and ultimately persuasive theoretical foundation on which many necessary repairs can now be built.

Inconsistent enrollment among hospitals for neonatal clinical trials may lead to study populations that are not representative of the patient population in the neonatal intensive care unit. The High-Dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and Encephalopathy (HEAL) trial was a multisite randomized clinical trial investigating erythropoietin as a neuroprotective treatment for term infants (those born between 37 and 42 complete weeks) with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. Substantial variability was noted in enrollment rate by hospital. We developed survey questions across five conceptual domains to understand systems-level issues that might contribute to variation in enrollment rate by hospital. Our study found that hospitals varied in their responses across these five domains. We propose three potential reasons that we found a lack of identifiable hospital-level factors that correlated with enrollment rates: sample-size limitations, methodological concerns, and confounding factors. Future studies with a larger sample size should be considered to evaluate contributors to hospital-level variability. This will lead to more robust recruitment strategies, improved enrollment, and decreases in the waste of research resources.

Discussion of medical researcher teams' ancillary-care obligations has long been dominated by partial-entrustment theory, developed in 2004 by the author of this article, in collaboration with Leah Belsky. Critics of the limited scope of the special ancillary-care obligations defended by that theory, however, argue that a better theory would take fuller account of the relationship that develops between individual research participants and members of the research team. Nate W. Olson and Thaddeus Metz have each put forward well worked-out versions of such a relationship-based account of ancillary-care obligations. This article critically evaluates these accounts, concluding that while each of them is vulnerable to various criticisms, each also crucially facilitates understanding of this relationship: Olson brings out well how research participants can find that role not just beneficial but also deeply meaningful, and Metz, drawing on African ethical traditions, emphasizes that when things go well, participants are involved as partners in the research effort. Yet the article closes by arguing that the partial-entrustment theory, surprisingly, can take on board each of these lessons. As so enhanced, it may actually be the best available relationship-based theory of this subject.

Government agencies and nonprofit organizations have increasingly turned to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate public policy interventions. Random assignment is widely understood to be fair when there is equipoise; however, some scholars and practitioners argue that random assignment is also permissible when an intervention is reasonably expected to be superior to other trial arms. For example, some argue that random assignment to such an intervention is fair when the intervention is scarce, for it is sometimes fair to use a lottery to allocate scarce goods. We investigate the permissibility of randomization in public policy RCTs when there is no equipoise, identifying two sets of conditions under which it is fair to allocate access to a superior intervention via random assignment. We also reject oft-made claims that alternative study designs, including stepped-wedge designs and uneven randomization, offer fair ways to allocate beneficial interventions.

The Covid-19 pandemic required rapid changes to research protocols, including immediate transitions to recruiting research participants and conducting the informed consent process virtually. This case study details the challenges our research team faced adapting an in-person, behavioral-intervention and survey study to virtual recruitment. We reflect on the impact of these rapid changes on recruitment and retention, discuss protocol changes we made to address these challenges and the needs of potential and enrolled participants, and propose recommendations for future work. Using computer technology to display professional return phone numbers, being flexible by contacting potential participants through various means, minimizing email communication due to added regulatory requirements, and partnering with the institutional review board to shorten and improve the consent document and process were critical to study success. This case study can offer insight to other researchers as they navigate similar processes. Virtual recruitment is likely to continue; it is important to ensure that it facilitates, rather than hinders, equitable and just recruitment practices.

Since the 2016 National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandate to use a single IRB (sIRB) in multicenter research, institutions have struggled to operationalize the process. In this demonstration project, the University of Utah Trial Innovation Center assisted the Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network to transition from using individually negotiated reliance agreements and paper-based documentation to a new sIRB master agreement and an informatics platform to capture reliance documentation. Lessons learned that can guide other academic institutions and IRBs as they operationalize sIRBs included the need for sites to understand what type of engagement or reliance is required and their need to understand the difference between reliance and activation. Requirements around local review remain poorly understood. Further research is needed to determine approaches that can achieve the NIH vision of reviews becoming more efficient and improving study start-up times, relieving administrative burden while advancing human research protections.

More and more frequently, clinical trials for Alzheimer disease (AD) are targeting cognitively unimpaired individuals who are at increased risk of developing the disease. It is not always clear whether AD biomarker information should be disclosed to research participants: on the one hand, research participants may be interested in learning this information because of its perceived utility, but on the other hand, learning this information may be harmful, as there are very few effective preventive or therapeutic options available for AD. In this article, we bring together three separate sets of ethical guidance literature: on the return of individual research results, on an individual's right to access personal data, and on transparent enrollment into clinical trials. Based on these literatures, we suggest policies for the disclosure of AD biomarker test results in longitudinal observational cohort studies, clinical trials, and hybrid research projects, such as the European Prevention of Alzheimer's Dementia (EPAD) project, in which we served as an ethics team. We also present and critically discuss recommendations for disclosure of AD biomarkers in practice. We underscore that, as long as the clinical validity of AD biomarkers remains limited, there are good reasons to avoid actively disclosing them to cognitively unimpaired research participants.