What do international ethics guidelines say in terms of the scope of medical research ethics?

BACKGROUND: In research ethics, the most basic question would always be, "which is an ethical issue, which is not?" Interestingly, depending on which ethics guideline we consult, we may have various answers to this question. Though we already have several international ethics guidelines for biomedical research involving human participants, ironically, we do not have a harmonized document which tells us what these various guidelines say and shows us the areas of consensus (or lack thereof). In this manuscript, we attempted to do just that. METHODS: We extracted the imperatives from five internationally-known ethics guidelines and took note where the imperatives came from. In doing so, we gathered data on how many guidelines support a specific imperative. RESULTS: We found that there is no consensus on the majority of the imperatives and that in only 8.2% of the imperatives were there at least moderate consensus (i.e., consensus of at least 3 of the 5 ethics guidelines). Of the 12 clusters (Basic Principles; Research Collaboration; Social Value; Scientific Validity; Participant Selection; Favorable Benefit/Risk Ratio; Independent Review; Informed Consent; Respect for Participants; Publication and Registration; Regulatory Sanctions; and Justified Research on the Vulnerable Population), Informed Consent has the highest level of consensus and Research Collaboration and Regulatory Sanctions have the least. CONCLUSION: There was a lack of consensus in the majority of imperatives from the five internationally-known ethics guidelines. This may be partly explained by the differences among the guidelines in terms of their levels of specification as well as conceptual/ideological differences

Toward responsible clinical n-of-1 strategies for rare diseases

N-of-1 strategies can provide high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy at the individual level and optimize evidence-based selection of off-label treatments for patients with rare diseases. Given their design characteristics, n-of-1 strategies are considered to lay at the intersection between medical research and clinical care. Therefore, whether n-of-1 strategies should be governed by research or care regulations remains a debated issue. Here, we delineate differences between medical research and optimized clinical care, and distinguish the regulations which apply to either. We also set standards for responsible optimized clinical n-of-1 strategies with (off-label) treatments for rare diseases. Implementing clinical n-of-1 strategies as defined here could aid in optimized treatment selection for such diseases

Pragmatic randomized trials in drug development pose new ethical questions : A systematic review

Implementation of pragmatic design elements in drug development could bridge the evidence gap that currently exists between the knowledge we have regarding the efficacy of a drug versus its true, comparative effectiveness in real life. We performed a review of the literature to identify the ethical challenges thus far related to pragmatic trials. The three central ethical questions identified for pragmatic trials are: (i) what level of oversight should pragmatic trials require; (ii) do randomized patients face additional risks; and (iii) is a waiver of informed consent ethically defensible? Despite the fact all reviewed publications dealt with post-launch pragmatic trials, these results could serve as an important starting point for conceptualizing which challenges could potentially arise in the pre-launch setting

Responsible data sharing in international health research: a systematic review of principles and norms

Abstract Background Large-scale linkage of international clinical datasets could lead to unique insights into disease aetiology and facilitate treatment evaluation and drug development. Hereto, multi-stakeholder consortia are currently designing several disease-specific translational research platforms to enable international health data sharing. Despite the recent adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the procedures for how to govern responsible data sharing in such projects are not at all spelled out yet. In search of a first, basic outline of an ethical governance framework, we set out to explore relevant ethical principles and norms. Methods We performed a systematic review of literature and ethical guidelines for principles and norms pertaining to data sharing for international health research. Results We observed an abundance of principles and norms with considerable convergence at the aggregate level of four overarching themes: societal benefits and value; distribution of risks, benefits and burdens; respect for individuals and groups; and public trust and engagement. However, at the level of principles and norms we identified substantial variation in the phrasing and level of detail, the number and content of norms considered necessary to protect a principle, and the contextual approaches in which principles and norms are used. Conclusions While providing some helpful leads for further work on a coherent governance framework for data sharing, the current collection of principles and norms prompts important questions about how to streamline terminology regarding de-identification and how to harmonise the identified principles and norms into a coherent governance framework that promotes data sharing while securing public trust

Responsible data sharing in international health research: a systematic review of principles and norms

BACKGROUND: Large-scale linkage of international clinical datasets could lead to unique insights into disease aetiology and facilitate treatment evaluation and drug development. Hereto, multi-stakeholder consortia are currently designing several disease-specific translational research platforms to enable international health data sharing. Despite the recent adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the procedures for how to govern responsible data sharing in such projects are not at all spelled out yet. In search of a first, basic outline of an ethical governance framework, we set out to explore relevant ethical principles and norms. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of literature and ethical guidelines for principles and norms pertaining to data sharing for international health research. RESULTS: We observed an abundance of principles and norms with considerable convergence at the aggregate level of four overarching themes: societal benefits and value; distribution of risks, benefits and burdens; respect for individuals and groups; and public trust and engagement. However, at the level of principles and norms we identified substantial variation in the phrasing and level of detail, the number and content of norms considered necessary to protect a principle, and the contextual approaches in which principles and norms are used. CONCLUSIONS: While providing some helpful leads for further work on a coherent governance framework for data sharing, the current collection of principles and norms prompts important questions about how to streamline terminology regarding de-identification and how to harmonise the identified principles and norms into a coherent governance framework that promotes data sharing while securing public trust

Drug regulators and ethics : which GCP issues are also ethical issues?

Within the European Union (EU), good clinical practice (GCP) provides an ethical mandate to regulators; however, it is unclear what the content of that mandate is. By looking at the correspondence between GCP and ethical imperatives, we identify that the mandate is within the following: principles; benefit:risk ratio; scientific validity; results publication; informed consent; respect for participants; and special populations. There are also cases when regulations were ethical but were not pairable to an imperative, and when the former were stricter than latter. Hence, we suggest closer cooperation between ethics committees and regulators to ensure that future versions of ethics guidelines cover the ethically relevant regulations that were not directly pairable to any imperative, and cooperation between GCP legislative bodies and ethics guideline-making bodies to resolve the discordant areas

Regulatory sanctions for ethically relevant GCP violations

Although EU inspectors and clinical assessors are mandated to identify and act upon ethical issues, regulators lack guidance on how this can be done. Hence, we propose a four-step regulatory approach on ethically relevant GCP violation findings. The first step is identification of the ethical issue. Next is analysis [i.e., identifying the gravity (intensity or severity) and the magnitude (amount and duration) of the ethics violation as well as the responsible person(s) or entity or entities]. The third step is evaluation, (i.e., the process of deliberating to determine the significance of the ethics violation, with the intention of identifying the most reasonable sanction and/or corrective or reparative action). Last is decision-making or the process of choosing and implementing a regulatory course of action