Reputation and Precedent in the Bevacizumab Decision

Governmen

Informed Consent and the Role of the Treating Physician

In the century since Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo famously declared that “[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body,” informed consent has become a central feature of American medical practice. In an increasingly team-based and technology-driven system, however, who is — or ought to be — responsible for obtaining a patient’s consent? Must the treating physician personally provide all the necessary disclosures, or can the consent process, like other aspects of modern medicine, take advantage of specialization and division of labor? Analysis of Shinal v. Toms, a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, demonstrates the dangers of a narrow, rigid approach to consent

Clinical research: Should patients pay to play?

We argue that charging people to participate in research is likely to undermine the fundamental ethical bases of clinical research, especially the principles of social value, scientific validity, and fair subject selection

A Unique Researcher Identifier for the Physician Payments Sunshine Act

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) promises a new era of transparency for the US health care system. Signed into law on March 23, 2010, the PPSA is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009.1 The PPSA requires medical product companies to report to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) a range of “transfers of value” to covered recipients (physicians and teaching hospitals). With some exceptions, these transfers and their value will be publicly disclosed.Governmen

Advance Care Planning in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

AbstractFew data are available on the prevalence of advance care planning (ACP) in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We surveyed adult patients pre-HCT to ascertain completion of various elements of ACP. We also reviewed medical records for documentation of discussions regarding ACP and for the presence of written advance directives. Evaluable surveys were returned by 155 of 335 patients (46%) who underwent HCT during the study period; we obtained permission for medical record review from 137 of these 155 survey respondents (88%). We found that 69% of the respondents reported having designated a health care proxy, 44% had completed a living will, 61% had prepared an estate will, and 63% had discussed their wishes regarding life support with family and friends. In contrast, only 16% had discussed their wishes regarding life support with their clinicians. Documentation of discussions between clinicians and patients regarding most elements of ACP was rare. Written advance directives were present in the charts of 54 patients (39%). ACP was more common in older, college-educated, and allogeneic transplant patients. Even though ACP was more prevalent among this sample than in the general population, its use still could be enhanced, given the high risks of decisional incapacity and death that HCT patients face

Experiences and Attitudes of Genome Investigators Regarding Return of Individual Genetic Test Results

Purpose Whether and how to return individual genetic results to study participants is among the most contentious policy issues in contemporary genomic research. Methods: We surveyed corresponding authors of genome-wide association studies (GWAS), identified through the National Human Genome Research Institute's Catalog of Published GWAS, to describe the experiences and attitudes of these stakeholders. Results: Of 357 corresponding authors, 200 (56%) responded. One hundred twenty-six (63%) had been responsible for primary data and sample collection, whereas 74 (37%) had performed secondary analyses. Only 7 (4%) had returned individual results within their index GWAS. Most (69%) believed that return of results to individual participants was warranted under at least some circumstances. Most respondents identified a desire to benefit participants's health (63%) and respect for participants's; desires for information (57%) as major motivations for returning results. Most also identified uncertain clinical utility (76%), the possibility that participants will misunderstand results (74%), the potential for emotional harm (61%), the need to ensure access to trained clinicians (59%), and the potential for loss of confidentiality (51%) as major barriers to return. Conclusion: Investigators have limited experience returning individual results from genome-scale research, yet most are motivated to do so in at least some circumstances

Clinical Trial Participation among Ethnic/Racial Minority and Majority Patients with Advanced Cancer: What Factors Most Influence Enrollment?

BACKGROUND: Studies using administrative data report that racial/ethnic minority patients enroll in clinical trials less frequently than white patients. We studied a cohort of terminally ill cancer patients to determine a) if racial/ethnic minority patients have lower rates of drug trial enrollment than white patients once socioeconomic characteristics are accounted for and b) what factors most influence drug trial enrollment among patients with advanced canceroverall. METHODS: Coping with Cancer (CwC) is a National Cancer Institute/National Institute of Mental Health (NCI/NIMH)-funded multisite, prospective, longitudinal study of patients with advanced cancer. Baseline interviews assessed drug trial enrollment as well as socioeconomic characteristics. Logistic regression models estimated associations between drug trial enrollment and baseline characteristics. Stepwise, backward, and subset model selection was applied to select the final model where characteristics significant at α=0.05 remained in the model. RESULTS: At a median of 4.4 months prior to death, 35 of 358 patients (9.8%) were enrolled in a drug trial. In unadjusted analyses, race/ethnicity, health insurance, performance status, recruitment site, cancer type, preference for life-extending care, and lack of end-of-life care planning were associated (p CONCLUSION: Patient race/ethnicity was not associated with clinical trial enrollment after adjustment for socioeconomic covariates. Patients with advanced cancer endorsing less engagement in end-of-life planning were more likely to be enrolled in a clinical trial

Ethical and Regulatory Issues for Embedded Pragmatic Trials Involving People Living with Dementia

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) present an opportunity to improve care for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners, but they also generate a complex constellation of ethical and regulatory challenges. These challenges begin with participant identification. Interventions may be delivered in ways that make it difficult to identify who is a human subject and therefore who needs ethical and regulatory protections. The need for informed consent, a core human subjects protection, must be considered but can be in tension with the goals of pragmatic research design. Thus it is essential to consider whether a waiver or alteration of informed consent is justifiable. If informed consent is needed, the question arises of how it should be obtained because researchers must acknowledge the vulnerability of PLWD due in part to diminished capacity and also to increased dependence on others. Further, researchers should recognize that many sites where ePCTs are conducted will be unfamiliar with human subjects research regulations and ethics. In this report, the Regulation and Ethics Core of the National Institute on Aging Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD) Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory discusses key ethical and regulatory challenges for ePCTs in PLWD. A central thesis is that researchers should strive to anticipate and address these challenges early in the design of their ePCTs as a means of both ensuring compliance and advancing science