In its essence, post-trial obligations describe a duty by research sponsors to provide a successfully tested drug to research participants who took part in the relevant clinical trials after the trial has been concluded. In some instances,this duty is extended beyond the research participants. This article is divided into three main parts. The first part outlines the legal basis for post-trial obligations by looking at international guidelines, including those issued by the World Medical (...) Association. National legislation is exemplified through resolutions and guidelines issued by Brazil and South Africa respectively. The second part analyses the ethical foundation for post-trial obligations, in particular the attempt to minimize exploitation of research subjects. The third part raises obstacles and challenges for the implementation of post-trial obligations. The jury is still out on whether post-trial obligations in the form of access to drugs for clinical trial participants is the best, or even a good way, to avoid exploitation in medical research. (shrink)

The general aim of this article is to give a critical interpretation of post-trial obligations towards individual research participants in the Declaration of Helsinki 2013. Transitioning research participants to the appropriate health care when a research study ends is a global problem. The publication of a new version of the Declaration of Helsinki is a great opportunity to discuss it. In my view, the Declaration of Helsinki 2013 identifies at least two clearly different types of post- (...) class='Hi'>trial obligations, specifically, access to care after research and access to information after research. The agents entitled to receive post-trial access are the individual participants in research studies. The Declaration identifies the sponsors, researchers and host country governments as the main agents responsible for complying with the post-trial obligations mentioned above. To justify this interpretation of post-trial obligations, I first introduce a classification of post-trial obligations and illustrate its application with examples from post-trial ethics literature. I then make a brief reconstruction of the formulations of post-trial obligations of the Declaration of Helsinki from 2000 to 2008 to correlate the changes with some of the most salient ethical arguments. Finally I advance a critical interpretation of the latest formulation of post-trial obligations. I defend the view that paragraph 34 of ‘Post-trial provisions’ is an improved formulation by comparison with earlier versions, especially for identifying responsible agents and abandoning ambiguous ‘fair benefit’ language. However, I criticize the disappearance of ‘access to other appropriate care’ present in the Declaration since 2004 and the narrow scope given to obligations of access to information after research. (shrink)

Patient narratives from two investigational deep brain stimulation trials for traumatic brain injury and obsessive‐compulsive disorder reveal that injury and illness rob individuals of personal identity and that neuromodulation can restore it. The early success of these interventions makes a compelling case for continued post‐trial access to these technologies. Given the centrality of personal identity to respect for persons, a failure to provide continued access can be understood to represent a metaphorical identity theft. Such a loss recapitulates the (...) pain of an individual's initial injury or illness and becomes especially tragic because it could be prevented by robust policy. A failure to fulfill this normative obligation constitutes a breach of disability law, which would view post‐trial access as a means to achieve social reintegration through this neurotechnological accommodation. (shrink)

Objective: Ethical guidelines are designed to ensure benefits, protection and respect of participants in clinical research. Clinical trials must now be registered on open-access databases and provide details on ethical considerations. This systematic survey aimed to determine the extent to which recently registered clinical trials report the use of standard of care and post-trial obligations in trial registries, and whether trial characteristics vary according to setting. Methods: We selected global randomized trials registered on http://www.clinicaltrials.gov and (...) http://www.controlled-trials.com. We searched for intervention trials of HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis from 9 October 2004, the date of the most recent version of the Helsinki Declaration, to 10 April 2007. Results: We collected data from 312 trials. Fifty-eight percent (58%, 95% CI = 53 to 64) of trial protocols report informed consent. Fifty-eight percent (58%, 95% CI = 53 to 64) of trials report active controls. Almost no trials (1%, 95% CI = 0.5 to 3) mention post-trial provisions. Most trials measure surrogate outcomes. Twenty percent (20%, 95% CI = 16 to 25) of trials measure patient-important outcomes, such as death; and the odds that these outcomes are in a low income country are five times greater than for a developed country (odds ratio (OR) 5.03, 95% CI = 2.70 to 9.35, p = < 0.001). Pharmaceutical companies are involved in 28% (CI = 23 to 33) of trials and measure surrogate outcomes more often than nonpharmaceutical companies (OR 2.45, 95% CI = 1.18 to 5.09, p = 0.31). Conclusion: We found a large discrepancy in the quality of reporting and approaches used in trials in developing settings compared to wealthier settings. (shrink)

What happens at the end of a clinical trial for an investigational neural implant? It may be surprising to learn how difficult it is to answer this question. While new trials are initiated with increasing regularity, relatively little consensus exists on how best to conduct them, and even less on how to ethically end them. The landscape of recent neural implant trials demonstrates wide variability of what happens to research participants after an neural implant trial ends. Some former (...) research participants continue to receive support for their devices (e.g., battery and component replacements, software updates, etc.). Others, when safe, have their neural implants removed through surgical explantation. Still others continue to live with a deactivated neural implant embedded in their body. In the United States, there are no uniform requirements to provide services, of any kind, after an neural implant study ends, and other nations are similarly facing this challenge. The existence of a post-trial gap in an expanding neural implant research ecosystem invites obvious questions: What is owed to neural implant research participants post-trial, and why has providing it been so difficult to accomplish in practice? To take a step forward on this difficult issue, we assembled one group of stakeholders – researchers funded for neuroethics grants by the National Institutes of Health – to explore possible starting points on one topic: ethical guidance for post-trial care of research participants in neural implant trials. Based on shared concerns discussed in the expert workshop the current paper is a call to action. It reports the key areas of convergence from the meeting and highlights important next steps towards developing much needed guidance. (shrink)

Objectives: To report the attitudes and opinions of subjects in US clinical trials about whether or not, and why, they should receive post-trial access (PTA) to the trial drug, care and information. Design: Focus groups, short self-administered questionnaires. Setting: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, Oklahoma City. Participants: Current and recent subjects in clinical trials, primarily for chronic diseases. Results: 93 individuals participated in 10 focus groups. Many thought researchers, sponsors, health insurers and others share obligations to facilitate PTA (...) to the trial drug, if it benefited the subject, or to a therapeutic equivalent. Some thought PTA obligations include providing transition care (referrals to non-trial physicians or other trials, limited follow-up, short-term drug supply) or care for long-term adverse events. Others held, in contrast, that there are no PTA obligations regarding drugs or care. However, there was agreement that former subjects should receive information (drug name, dosage received, market approval date, long-term adverse effects, trial results). Participants frequently appealed to health need, cost, relationships, reciprocity, free choice and sponsor self-interest to support their views. Many of their reasons overlapped with those commonly discussed by bioethicists. Conclusion: Many participants in US trials for chronic conditions thought there are obligations to facilitate PTA to the trial drug at a “fair” price; these views were less demanding than those of non-US subjects in other studies. However, our participants’ views about informational obligations were broader than those of other subjects and many bioethicists. Our results suggest that the PTA debate should expand beyond the trial drug and aggregate results. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Many recent articles argue that participants who seroconvert during HIV prevention trials deserve treatment when they develop AIDS, and there is a general consensus that the participants in HIV/aids treatment trials should have continuing post‐trial access. As a result, the primary concern of many ethicists and activists has shifted from justifying an obligation to treat trial participants, to working out mechanisms through which treatment could be provided. In this paper I argue that this shift frequently conceals (...) an important assumption: that if there is an obligation to supply treatment, then any party who could provide it may be prevailed upon to discharge the obligation. This assumption is false. The reasons why trial participants should get ART affect who has the duty to provide it. We should not burden governments with the obligations of sponsors, nor researchers with the obligations of the international community. And we should not deprive a group of treatment because their need is less salient than that of research participants. Insisting otherwise may lead to people being wrongfully deprived of access to antiretrovirals. (shrink)

Ethics guidance increasingly recognises that researchers and sponsors have obligations to consider provisions for post-trial access to interventions that are found to be beneficial in research. Yet, there is little information regarding whether and how such plans can actually be implemented. Understanding practical experiences of developing and implementing these plans is critical to both optimising their implementation and informing conceptual work related to PTA. This viewpoint is informed by experiences with developing and implementing PTA plans for six (...) large-scale multicentre HIV prevention trials supported by the HIV Prevention Trials Network. These experiences suggest that planning and implementing PTA often involve challenges of planning under uncertainty and confronting practical barriers to accessing healthcare systems. Even in relatively favourable circumstances where a tested intervention medication is approved and available in the local healthcare system, system-level barriers can threaten the viability of PTA plans. The aggregate experience across these HIV prevention trials suggests that simply referring participants to local healthcare systems for PTA will not necessarily result in continued access to beneficial interventions for trial participants. Serious commitments to PTA will require additional efforts to learn from future approaches, measuring the success of PTA plans with dedicated follow-up and further developing normative guidance to help research stakeholders navigate the complex practical challenges of realising PTA. (shrink)

We argue that in implanted neurotechnology research, participants and researchers experience what Henry Richardson has called “moral entanglement.” Participants partially entrust researchers with access to their brains and thus to information that would otherwise be private, leading to created intimacies and special obligations of beneficence for researchers and research funding agencies. One of these obligations, we argue, is about continued access to beneficial technology once a trial ends. We make the case for moral entanglement in this context (...) through exploration of participants’ vulnerability, uncompensated risks and burdens, depth of relationship with the research team, and dependence on researchers in implanted neurotechnology trials. (shrink)

There is currently no international consensus around post-trial obligations toward research participants, community members, and host countries. This literature review investigates arguments and attitudes toward post-trial access. The literature review found that academic discussions focused on the rights of research participants, but offered few practical recommendations for addressing or improving current practices. Similarly, there are few regulations or legislation pertaining to post-trial access. If regulatory changes are necessary, we need to understand the current (...) arguments, legislation, and attitudes towards post-trial access and participants and community members. Given that clinical trials conducted in low-income countries will likely continue, there is an urgent need for consideration of post-trial benefits for participants, communities, and citizens of host countries. While this issue may not be as pressing in countries where participants have access to healthcare and medicines through public schemes, it is particularly important in regions where this may not be available. (shrink)

Purpose We examine the levels of post-trial responsibility ascribed to different stakeholders, following a community-based clinical trial and how the ‘responsibility’ is understood. Methods We employed photovoice, unstructured observations and key informant interviews to gain insights into contexts of access to care following transition to the public health system post trial. We used an inductive narrative analysis to explore experiences and understandings of post-trial access. Results In their photovoice stories, many participants expressed a (...) sense of abandonment after the trial. This was viewed as a contributing factor to failing to re-engage with care available in the public health system. This led to the experiences of loss as some trial participants defaulted and died. Research investigators, department of health participants and sponsor agreed that PTA was especially important for communities in resource-limited settings. The government has an obligation towards its citizens while researchers have a responsibility to ensure a smooth transition of patients to public clinics. Sponsors have a responsibility to ensure that the trial is conducted in accordance with the protocol and post-trial agreements are in place and adhered to. Research partnerships among stakeholders were affected by power imbalances making it difficult to negotiate and plan for post-trial care responsibilities. Conclusions The research community still struggles with understanding the scope of PTA responsibilities. Power dynamics between public health actors and research sponsors need to be managed to ensure that government involvement is not tokenistic. The responsibility of trial participants and ethics committees needs to be investigated further. Data are available upon request. (shrink)

When research concludes, post-trial access to the trial intervention or standard healthcare can be crucial for participants who are ill such as those in resource-poor countries with inadequate healthcare, British participants testing ‘last-chance drugs’ unavailable on the National Health Service and underinsured US participants. Yet, many researchers are unclear about their obligations regarding the post-trial period, and many research ethics committees do not know what to require of researchers. Consequences include participants who reasonably expect (...) but lack PTA to the trial intervention, unplanned financial liabilities for NHS Trusts forced to fund this, negative press and potential to undermine public trust.1–3,iOne reason for the lack of clarity is controversy over whether and when participants should have access, after the study, to the study intervention. At one extreme is the view that continued access should be ensured when the intervention has benefited the participant or when it has proven safe and effective for the participant population, irrespective of the cost and burden of ensuring continued access. At the other extreme is the view that continued access need never be provided so long as non-availability of the study intervention post-trial was adequately disclosed when participants were invited to participate.6 There is also disagreement about when poststudy access to the study intervention should be considered beneficial for participants. The spectrum ranges from the view that the intervention should be regarded as beneficial for a proposed use only after the …. (shrink)

The principle of providing post-trial access for research participants to successful products of that research is widely accepted and has been enshrined in various declarations and guidelines. While recent ethical guidelines recognise that the responsibility to provide post-trial access extends to sponsors, regulators and government bodies as well as to researchers, it is the researchers who have the direct duty of care to participants. Researchers may thus need to act as advocates for trial participants, especially (...) where government bodies, sponsors, and regulatory bodies have complex interests vested in decisions about whether or not new interventions are made available, how, and to whom. This paper provides an empirical account of post-trial access in the context of HIV prevention research. It describes both access to the successful products of research and the provision antiretroviral drugs for trial participants who acquire HIV. First, we provide evidence that, in the current system, there is considerable variation in the duration and timeliness of access. We then argue that by analysing the difficulties faced by researchers to this point, and their efforts to meet this obligation, much can be learned about how to secure post-trial access in HIV biomedical preventions trials. While researchers alone have a limited obligation, their advocacy on behalf of trial participants may be necessary to call the other parties to account. (shrink)

Este artículo considera el problema de justicia en la investigación biomédica en países en desarrollo. En particular se hace foco en la discusión de si el requisito de poner a disposición toda intervención probada efectiva puede ser considerado como una obligación post investigación de los patrocinadores hacia la comunidad anfitriona. Primero, se discuten las concepciones de la Comisión Nacional de Asesoramiento sobre Bioética (NBAC) de los Estados Unidos y de las guías éticas internacionales sobre la obligación post investigación (...) hacia la comunidad. Luego, se examinan las interpretaciones del modelo de disponibilidad razonable y el modelo de beneficios justos sobre la condición de acceso a los beneficios post investigación. Por último, presento y critico el argumento del carácter contraproducente de la obligación post investigación que afirma que la obligación post investigación limita el desarrollo de la investigación y empeora la situación de las poblaciones de los países en desarrollo. [ABSTRACT] This article refers to the problem of justice in biomedical research in developing countries and in particular it focus in the discussion of whether the requirement of making available any effective intervention could be consider a post-trial obligation of the sponsor towards the host community. First, the National Advisory Bioethics Commission’s (NBAC) conception and the international guidelines’ conception of post-trial obligations towards the community are discussed. Second, the interpretation of reasonable availability model and the fair benefits model of the condition of access to post trial benefits are examined. Finally, I present and criticize the moral counterproductive argument which affirms that post trial obligations towards the community prevent new drug research and make population in developing countries worse off. (shrink)

As clinical trials end, little is understood about how participants exiting from clinical trials approach decisions related to the removal or post-trial use of investigational brain implants, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices. This empirical bioethics study examines how research participants experience the process of exit from research at the end of clinical trials of implanted neural devices. Using a modified grounded theory study design, we conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 16 former research participants from clinical trials (...) of DBS and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). Open-ended questions elicited motivations for joining the trial, understanding of study procedures at the time of initial informed consent, the process of exiting from research, and decisions about device removal or post-trial device use. Thematic analysis identified categories related to: limited preparedness for the end of research participation, straightforwardness of decisions to explant or keep the device, reconciling with the end of research participation, reconciling post-trial expectations, and achieving a sense of closure after exit from research. A preliminary theoretical model describes contextual factors influencing the process and experience of exit from research. Experiences of clinical trial participants should guide research practices to enhance the ethical design and conduct of clinical trials in DBS and other brain devices. (shrink)

Background In the EU, clinical assessors, rapporteurs and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use are obliged to assess the ethical aspects of a clinical development program and include major ethical flaws in the marketing authorization deliberation processes. To this date, we know very little about the manner that these regulators put this obligation into action. In this paper, we intend to look into the manner and the extent that ethical issues discovered during inspection have reached the deliberation processes. (...) Methods To gather data, we used the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board database and first searched for the inspections, and their accompanying site inspection reports and integrated inspection reports, related to central marketing authorization applications of drugs submitted to the European Medicines Agency from 2011 to 2015. We then extracted inspection findings that were purely of ethical nature, i.e., those that did not affect the benefit/risk balance of the study. Only findings graded at least major by the inspectorate were included. Lastly, to identify how many of the ethically relevant findings reach the application deliberation processes, we extracted the relevant joint response assessment reports and reviewed the sections that discussed inspection findings. Results From 2011 to 2015, there were 390 processed applications, of which 65 had inspection reports and integrated inspection reports accessible via the database of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Of the 65, we found ERFs in 37. The majority of the ERFs were graded as major and half of the time it was informed-consent related. A third of these findings were related to research ethics committee processes and requirements. Of the 37 inspections with ERFs, 30 were endorsed in the integrated inspection reports as generally GCP compliant. Day 150 joint response assessment reports and Day 180 list of outstanding issues were reviewed for all 37 inspections, and none of the ERFs were carried over in any of the assessment reports or list of outstanding issues. Conclusion None of the ethically relevant findings, all of which were graded as major or critical in integrated inspection reports, were explicitly carried over to the joint assessment reports. This calls for more transparency in EMA application deliberations on how ERFs are considered, if at all, in the decision-making processes. (shrink)

This is the second paper in a two-part series describing subject and family perspectives from the CENTURY-S (CENtral Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain InjURY-Safety) first-in-human invasive neurological device trial to achieve cognitive restoration in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI). To participate, subjects were independently assessed to formally establish decision-making capacity to provide voluntary informed consent. Here, we report on post-operative interviews conducted after a successful trial of thalamic stimulation. All five (...) msTBI subjects met a pre-selected primary endpoint of at least a 10% improvement in completion time on Trail-Making-Test Part B, a marker of executive function. We describe narrative responses of subjects and family members, refracted against that success. Interviews following surgery and the stimulation trial revealed the challenge of adaptation to improvements in cognitive function and emotional regulation as well as altered (and restored) relationships and family dynamics. These improvements exposed barriers to social reintegration made relevant by recoveries once thought inconceivable. The study’s success sparked concerns about post-trial access to implanted devices, financing of device maintenance, battery replacement, and on-going care. Most subjects and families identified the need for supportive counseling to adapt to the new trajectory of their lives. (shrink)

El problema de la transición de los participantes desde una investigación hacia la atención de la salud apropiada es un problema global. La publicación de una nueva versión de la Declaración de Helsinki es una excelente oportunidad para repensar este problema. Según mi interpretación, la Declaración de Helsinki 2013 introduce dos tipos diferentes de obligaciones posinvestigación, a saber, (1) obligaciones de acceso a atención de la salud y (2) obligaciones de acceso a información. Los beneficiarios pretendidos de estas obligaciones son (...) los participantes individuales de estudios de investigación. Y la Declaración identifica a los patrocinadores, investigadores y gobiernos de los países anfitriones como los principales agentes responsables de cumplir con las obligaciones posinvestigación. Para justificar esta interpretación de los tipos, agentes y beneficiarios de las obligaciones posinvestigación, presento primero una clasificación tentativa de las obligaciones posinvestigación. Luego hago una breve reconstrucción conceptual de las formulaciones de las obligaciones posinvestigación en las versiones anteriores de la Declaración y reviso las principales críticas. Finalmente presento un análisis crítico de la nueva formulación de las obligaciones posinvestigación basándome en la discusión de las secciones anteriores. [ABSTRACT] The problem of transitioning research participants when the study is concluded to the appropriate health care is a global problem. The publication of a new version of the Declaration of Helsinki and its public discussion is a great opportunity to rethink this problem. According to my interpretation, the Declaration of Helsinki 2013 identifies two different types of post-trial obligations, namely, (1) obligations of access to health care and (2) the obligations of access to information. The intended beneficiaries of these obligations are individual participants of research studies. And the Declaration identifies the sponsors, researchers and host country governments as the main agents responsible for complying with the post-trial obligations mentioned above. To justify this interpretation of the types, agents and beneficiaries of post-trial obligations, I first introduce a tentative classification of post-trial obligations. Then I make a brief conceptual reconstruction of formulations of post-trial obligations in earlier versions of the Declaration and revise the main critiques. Finally I advance a critical analysis of the new formulation of post-trial obligations based on the discussion in the previous sections. (shrink)

BackgroundHIV prevention research in resource-limited countries is associated with a variety of ethical dilemmas. Key amongst these is the question of what constitutes an appropriate standard of health care (SoC) for participants in HIV prevention trials. This paper describes a community-focused approach to develop a locally-appropriate SoC in the context of a phase III vaginal microbicide trial in Mwanza City, northwest Tanzania.MethodsA mobile community-based sexual and reproductive health service for women working as informal food vendors or in traditional and (...) modern bars, restaurants, hotels and guesthouses has been established in 10 city wards. Wards were divided into geographical clusters and community representatives elected at cluster and ward level. A city-level Community Advisory Committee (CAC) with representatives from each ward has been established. Workshops and community meetings at ward and city-level have explored project-related concerns using tools adapted from participatory learning and action techniques e.g. chapati diagrams, pair-wise ranking. Secondary stakeholders representing local public-sector and non-governmental health and social care providers have formed a trial Stakeholders' Advisory Group (SAG), which includes two CAC representatives.ResultsKey recommendations from participatory community workshops, CAC and SAG meetings conducted in the first year of the trial relate to the quality and range of clinic services provided at study clinics as well as broader standard of care issues. Recommendations have included streamlining clinic services to reduce waiting times, expanding services to include the children and spouses of participants and providing care for common local conditions such as malaria. Participants, community representatives and stakeholders felt there was an ethical obligation to ensure effective access to antiretroviral drugs and to provide supportive community-based care for women identified as HIV positive during the trial. This obligation includes ensuring sustainable, post-trial access to these services. Post-trial access to an effective vaginal microbicide was also felt to be a moral imperative.ConclusionParticipatory methodologies enabled effective partnerships between researchers, participant representatives and community stakeholders to be developed and facilitated local dialogue and consensus on what constitutes a locally-appropriate standard of care in the context of a vaginal microbicide trial in this setting.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN64716212. (shrink)

BackgroundWhile ethicists have for many years called for human subject trial participants and, in some cases, local community members to benefit from participation in pharmaceutical and other intervention-based therapies, little is known about how these discussions are impacting the practice of research ethics boards that grant ethical approval to many of these studies.MethodsTelephone interviews were conducted with 23 REB members from across Canada, a major funder country for human subject research internationally. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. (...) After coding, the data was analyzed to identify central themes and topics. Themes were identified, application of the themes was confirmed, and these themes were then used to populate the findings of this manuscript.ResultsOur analysis of the interviews identified two primary themes when considering what benefits are owed to research participants and their communities. 1) Most study participants felt that given that these studies are led by persons in the role of researcher rather than health care provider, they had a limited obligation to provide benefits to study participants. 2) These REB members were all working in Canada, a high income country where most residents enjoy high levels of access to health care. As a result of this context, the study participants tended to focus on ethical concerns including obtaining informed consent and avoiding undue inducement to participate in research rather than ensuring that study participants directly benefit from successful trials.ConclusionsResearch on REB members’ attitudes toward what benefits are owed to study participants and community members is needed in other countries in order to determine how context affects these attitudes. (shrink)

Care after research is for participants after they have finished the study. Often it is NHS-provided healthcare for the medical condition that the study addresses. Sometimes it includes the study intervention, whether funded and supplied by the study sponsor, NHS or other party. The NHS has the primary responsibility for care after research. However, researchers are responsible at least for explaining and justifying what will happen to participants once they have finished. RECs are responsible for considering the arrangements. There are (...) ethical and practical issues, in particular when participants may wish to continue on the study intervention after the study. There are also various guidelines and legislation. This document presents a framework of questions to help NHS RECs and their applicants. Information on this document’s development is here. (shrink)

The World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki is one of the most important and influential international research ethics documents. Launched in 1964, when ethical guidance for research was scarce, the Declaration comprised eleven basic principles and provisions on clinical research. The document has since evolved to a complex set of principles, norms, and directions for action of varying degrees of specificity, ranging from specific rules to broad aspirational statements. It has been revised six times in an effort to maintain its (...) influence. While all revisions were the result of vigorous debate, the 2000 revision and two subsequent notes of clarification spurred particular controversy surrounding the use of placebo in clinical research and the standard of care and post-trial obligations in research in developing countries. Several institutions opted to cite earlier versions of the Declaration, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently removed all reference to the Declaration in its approval requirements for drugs and biological products that are studied outside the United States. (shrink)

In research involving patients with implantable brain–computer interfaces (BCIs), there is a regulatory gap concerning post-trial responsibilities and duties of sponsors and investigators towards implanted patients. In this article, we analyse the case of patient R, who underwent non-voluntary explantation of an implanted BCI, causing a discontinuation in her sense of agency and self. To clarify the post-trial duties and responsibilities involved in this case, we first define the ontological status of the BCI using both externalist (...) (EXT) and internalist (INT) theories of cognition. We then give particular focus to the theories of extended and embedded cognition, hence considering the BCI either as a constitutive component of the patient’s mind or as a causal supporter of her brain-based cognitive capacities. We argue that patient R can legitimately be considered both as an embedded and extended cognitive agent. Then, we analyse whether the non-voluntary explantation violated patient R’s (neuro)rights to cognitive liberty, mental integrity, psychological continuity and mental privacy. We analyse whether and how different mental ontologies may imply morally relevant differences in interpreting these prima facie neurorights violations and the correlational duties of sponsors and investigators. We conclude that both mental ontologies support the identification of emerging neurorights of the patient and give rise to post-trial obligations of sponsors and investigators to provide for continuous technical maintenance of implanted BCIs that play a significant role in patients’ agency and sense of self. However, we suggest that externalist mental ontologies better capture patient R’s self-conception and support the identification of a more granular form of mental harm and associated neurorights violation, thus eliciting stricter post-trial obligations. (shrink)

In the transition from a repressive to a democratic society, the successor government faces the problem of how to deal with grave human rights violations such as killings and torture committed under its predecessor. This paper analyzes the dilemma a new government may encounter when it attempts to prosecute and punish those found responsible. On one hand, trials of chargeable officers may be able to prevent human rights abuses in the future and to facilitate instituting or restoring democracy. On the (...) other, in the case that there were no legal rules definitively prohibiting the abuses committed by these officers, the trials require ex post facto laws, which breach the principle of nulla poena sine lege, and more generally violate the rule of law. These retroactive laws not only break legal predictability but treat individuals unfairly. After identifying both the need for, and the legal and political losses incurred by such criminal trials, the author examines the claims that international law resolves the dilemma of retroactive justice or that prosecution is justified as a fulfillment of international obligation. Then the author refers to this dilemma as “dirty hands” to characterize a circumstance in which one cannot avoid using the wrong means to obtain the best ends. Such characterization has normative implications for three aspects of trials: the process of enacting retroactive laws and the process of conducting the trials; the choice of other possible legal remedies; and the principles related to reactions in the international community. (shrink)

The concept of benefit sharing pertains to the act of giving something in return to the participants, communities, and the country that have participated in global health research or bioprospecting activities. One of the key concerns of benefit sharing is the ethical justifications or reasons to support the practice of the concept in global health research and bioprospecting. This article evaluates one of such ethical justifications and its meaning to benefit sharing, namely justice. We conducted a systematic review to map (...) the various principles of justice that are linked to benefit sharing and analysed their meaning to the concept of benefit sharing. Five principles of justice have been shown to be relevant in the nuances of benefit sharing in both global health research and bioprospecting. The review findings indicate that each of these principles of justice provides a different perspective for a different benefit sharing rationale. For example, commutative justice provides a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on fair exchange of benefits between research sponsors and communities. Distributive justice produces a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on improving the health needs of the vulnerable research communities. We have suggested that a good benefit sharing framework particularly in global health research would be more beneficial if it combines all the principles of justice in its formulation. Nonetheless, there is a need for empirical studies to examine the various principles of justice and their nuances in benefit sharing among stakeholders in global health research. (shrink)

¿Qué ocurre con la continuidad del tratamiento de los sujetos de investigación después de que realizan la última visita del ensayo en el que participan? En algunos casos, la falta de continuidad de atención de la salud apropiada podría poner en peligro la salud de estas personas. Por lo tanto, es probable que los sujetos de investigación que al terminar su participación en un ensayo todavía se encuentran enfermos, necesiten continuar con el tratamiento en estudio u otra atención de la (...) salud adecuada por el resto de sus vidas, sean unos pocos meses o muchos años. No obstante, no todas las sociedades cuentan con los recursos e instituciones para resolver el problema de la continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso. La opinión de un sujeto de investigación norteamericano, al que llamaremos Pedro, sin seguro de salud que participó en un ensayo de largo plazo sobre diabetes ejemplifica el problema de la continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso: “de repente [ellos] simplemente cortan la cuerda, y uno está solo por su cuenta, ya sabes. O consigues trescientos o cuatrocientos dólares al mes para seguir con esto o simplemente sigues adelante y mueres”. En este trabajo intentaré dar un panorama de la reciente discusión en torno al problema de la continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso en la ética de la investigación. Por tratamiento beneficioso hago referencia a dos cosas. En primer lugar, el tratamiento beneficioso puede ser (1) el tratamiento en estudio, p. e. el tratamiento o intervención en investigación que estaba recibiendo Pedro para su diabetes en el ejemplo anterior. Una droga o un producto biológico es un tratamiento en estudio para un uso propuesto (indicación) desde el primer ensayo con seres humanos hasta el momento en que es aprobado para su comercialización por las autoridades reguladoras de fármacos. El segundo lugar, el tratamiento beneficioso también puede ser (2) otra atención de la salud apropiada para el sujeto de investigación distinta del tratamiento en estudio, p. e. si existiera un tratamiento alternativo disponible para la enfermedad o condición de Pedro, distinto del tratamiento en estudio, y se justificara hacer la transición a ese otro tratamiento por razones de un mejor perfil de efectividad, seguridad y/o toxicidad. En la sección 1 de este trabajo introduciré una taxonomía de las obligaciones éticas de acceso posinvestigación (1.1.), realizaré un relevamiento histórico del concepto basado en las guías éticas internacionales (1.2) y analizaré el surgimiento del término “continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso hacia los sujetos de investigación” y otros términos análogos como “atención después de la investigación” (1.3). En la sección 2 presentaré los casos ejemplares en la bibliografía: continuidad de tratamiento en investigación en VIH/SIDA (2.1), continuidad de tratamiento en investigación en cáncer (2.2.) y otros casos de continuidad de tratamiento (2.3). (shrink)

Este trabajo es un comentario sobre la primera traducción al español de las guías del Reino Unido “Atención después de la investigación: un marco para los comités de ética de investigación del NHS (borrador versión 8.0)”. El comentario se divide en tres partes. En la primera parte, se busca resumir la información básica necesaria para mejorar la lectura comprensiva de la traducción de las guías. En la segunda parte, se analiza una selección de la normativa argentina que trata sobre atención (...) después de la investigación. En la tercera parte, se presentan las principales limitaciones del borrador de las guías y su traducción. El propósito de este comentario es que los futuros lectores y lectoras puedan hacer un uso crítico y deliberado de las guías, en la evaluación de estudios clínicos o como base para la redacción de guías propias sobre atención después de la investigación. ***This work is a commentary on the first Spanish translation of the UK guidelines “Care after research: a framework for NHS research ethics committees (draft version 8.0)”. The commentary is divided into three parts. The first part seeks to summarize the basic information needed to improve reading comprehension of the translation of the guidelines. The second part analyzes a selection of Argentinean regulations dealing with care after research. The third part presents the main limitations of the guidelines draft and its translation. The purpose of this commentary is that future readers can make a critical and deliberate use of guidelines in the assessment of clinical studies or as a basis for drafting their own guidelines on care after research. (shrink)

Resumen Ésta es la primera traducción al español de las guías “Atención después de la investigación: un marco para los comités de ética de investigación del National Health Service (NHS) (borrador versión 8.0)”. El documento afirma que existe una fuerte obligación moral de garantizar que los participantes enfermos de un estudio clínico hagan una transición después del estudio hacia una atención de la salud apropiada. Con “atención de la salud apropiada” se hace referencia al acceso para los participantes a la (...) atención de la salud, proporcionada principalmente por el National Health Service (en adelante NHS), el sistema de salud del Reino Unido, y/o a la intervención en estudio, también llamada producto o tratamiento en investigación. Las guías “Atención después de la investigación” están dirigidas principalmente a los miembros de los 79 comités de ética de investigación del NHS y a quienes presentan sus estudios de investigación ante estos comités. Se trata de un documento borrador muy avanzado, trabajado en numerosas reuniones, durante más de 3 años, que ha sido discutido por participantes de estudios y miembros de la comunidad, miembros y presidentes de comités de ética de investigación del Reino Unido, especialistas internacionales en ética de la investigación, representantes de la industria y otras partes interesadas. La redacción de las guías es producto de la colaboración de Neema Sofaer y Penney Lewis, ambas investigadoras del King’s College London, en el Centre of Medical Law and Ethics del Dickson Poon School of Law, y Hugh Davies, Asesor en Ética de la Investigación de la Health Research Authority (HRA) del NHS. El traductor del presente documento, Ignacio Mastroleo, participó del workshop en la Fundación Brocher (Ginebra, Suiza, diciembre de 2011) donde se revisó el borrador versión 7.0 y contribuyó en la revisión del borrador de la versión 8.0 durante el 2012. -/- Abstract This is the first Spanish translation of the guidelines “Care after research: a framework for NHS RECs (8th draft)”. The document states that there is a strong moral obligation to ensure that participants in a clinical study who are ill transition after the study to appropriate healthcare. The terms "appropriate healthcare" refer to participants’ access to health care, mainly provided by the National Health Service (NHS), the health system in the UK, and/or to the intervention study also named investigational treatment or product. The guides "Care after research" are mainly directed to members of the 79 NHS committees of research ethics (RECs) and to those who submit their research to these committees. This is a very advanced draft document, worked in several meetings, for more than three years, that has been discussed with study participants and community members, members and chairs of RECs in the UK, international specialists in research ethics, industry representatives and other stakeholders. The drafting of the guidelines is the result of the collaboration of Neema Sofaer and Penney Lewis, both researchers at King's College London, at the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics of Dickson Poon School of Law, and Hugh Davies, Research Ethics Advisor of the Health Research Authority (HRA) of the NHS. The translator of this document, Ignacio Mastroleo, attended the workshop at the Brocher Foundation (Geneva, Switzerland, December 2011) where draft version 7.0 was revised and contributed in the revision of draft version 8.0 during 2012. (shrink)

How international research might contribute to justice in global health has not been substantively addressed by bioethics. Theories of justice from political philosophy establish obligations for parties from high‐income countries owed to parties from low and middle‐income countries. We have developed a new framework that is based on Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm to strengthen the link between international clinical research and justice in global health. The ‘research for health justice’ framework provides direction on three aspects of international clinical (...) research: the research target, research capacity strengthening, and post‐trial benefits. It identifies the obligations of justice owed by national governments, research funders, research sponsors, and investigators to trial participants and host communities. These obligations vary from those currently articulated in international research ethics guidelines. Ethical requirements of a different kind are needed if international clinical research is to advance global health equity. (shrink)

We typically think of prosecutorial ethics as encompassing a special set of obligations for prosecutors during the pretrial and trial stages of a criminal case. In the literature and in rules of professional responsibility much attention is paid to the charging function, contact with unrepresented persons, plea negotiations, discovery, and courtroom decorum. Our concern with prosecutorial ethics at these stages is rooted primarily in due process and fairness to the accused. [W]hile he may strike hard blows, the Supreme (...) Court wrote in Berger v. United States, [a prosecutor] is not at liberty to strike foul ones. Whether it is a recognition that the prosecutor acts as a representative of the sovereign or that he or she possesses extraordinary power over people's lives, we speak about the prosecutor's ethical duties as special or additional to those of ordinary lawyers. By preventing a prosecutor from litigating unfairly, the aim is to protect a criminal defendant from an unjust or unwarranted conviction. What, then, are the ethical duties of prosecutors after the defendant has had his fair shot at trial, but lost? The literature and standards are surprisingly silent, with rare exception, on the post-conviction ethics of prosecutors. Constraints on the prosecutorial function seem to reach their apex at trial. Why? Are the reasons for special or additional ethics for prosecutors non-existent on appeal? Is the vast discretion, present at the pretrial and trial stages and thought by some to justify special ethical duties, absent on appeal? As a recent case from Texas illustrates, ethical issues still abound even after a jury returns a verdict of guilty. Nevertheless, the traditional discourse on pre-conviction duties can help us determine how prosecutorial discretion should be exercised after a conviction has been obtained. (shrink)

Bioethicists have long debated the content of sponsors and researchers' obligations of justice in international clinical research. However, there has been little empirical investigation as to whether and how obligations of responsiveness, ancillary care, post-trial benefits and research capacity strengthening are upheld in low- and middle-income country settings. In this paper, the authors argue that research ethics guidelines need to be more informed by international research practice. Practical guidance on how to fulfil these obligations is (...) needed if research groups and other actors are to successfully translate them into practice because doing so is often a complicated, context-specific process. Case study research methods offer one avenue for collecting data to develop this guidance. The authors describe how such methods have been used in relation to the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit's vivax malaria treatment (VHX) trial (NCT01074905). Relying on the VHX trial example, the paper shows how information can be gathered from not only international clinical researchers but also trial participants, community advisory board members and research funder representatives in order to: (1) measure evidence of responsiveness, provision of ancillary care, access to post-trial benefits and research capacity strengthening in international clinical research; and (2) identify the contextual factors and roles and responsibilities that were instrumental in the fulfilment of these ethical obligations. Such empirical work is necessary to inform the articulation of obligations of justice in international research and to develop guidance on how to fulfil them in order to facilitate better adherence to guidelines' requirements. (shrink)

A common reason for giving research participants post-trial access to the trial intervention appeals to reciprocity, the principle, stated most generally, that if one person benefits a second, the second should reciprocate: benefit the first in return. Many authors consider it obvious that reciprocity supports PTA. Yet their reciprocity principles differ, with many authors apparently unaware of alternative versions. This article is the first to gather the range of reciprocity principles. It finds that: most are false. The (...) most plausible principle, which is also problematic, applies only when participants experience significant net risks or burdens. Seldom does reciprocity support PTA for participants or give researchers stronger reason to benefit participants than equally needy non-participants. Reciprocity fails to explain the common view that it is bad when participants in a successful trial have benefited from the trial intervention but lack PTA to it. (shrink)

In 2006, the Indonesian government decided to withhold avian flu samples from the World Health Organization. They argued that even though Indonesian samples were crucial to the development of vaccines, the results of vaccine research would be unaffordable for its citizens. Commentaries on the case varied from alleging blackmail to welcoming this strong stance against alleged exploitation. What is clear is that the concern expressed is related to benefit sharing.Benefit sharing requires resource users to return benefits to resource providers in (...) order to achieve justice. One benefit sharing tool within health research is the duty to provide a health care intervention which has been proven to be beneficial (or alternative benefits) to research participants after a study has been concluded. This duty is generally known as a post-study obligation. It was enshrined in the Declaration of Helsinki in 2000 and re-emphasized in 2008. Yet, there are few, if any, examples of good practice.In this article, we analyse the obstacles to giving more bite to benefit sharing provisions in health research through ethical review. We conclude that the provision of post-study access to healthcare interventions is not a promising mechanism when monitored through research ethics committees. Alternative benefit provision is preferable if one focuses on achieving compliance. However, even the latter faces challenges, which we address in specific recommendations. (shrink)

The need for continuing provision of beneficial experimental interventions after research is concluded remains a controversial topic in bioethics for research. Based on the principle of beneficence, justice as reciprocity, concerns about exploitation and fair benefits, participants should be able to have continuing access to benefits beyond the research period. However, there is no consensus about whether or not post-trial provision of beneficial interventions should be mandatory for participants from developing countries. This paper summarises recommendations from international and (...) national guidelines. Ethical principles and practical issues relating to post-trial provision are also discussed. In conclusion, post-trial provision is not necessary in all situations and a set of criteria are proposed to identify the situations that beneficial interventions should be provided beyond the research period. However, mandatory post-trial supply of beneficial experimental interventions should be assured for those who still need and are able to benefit from them but have no alternative access. Mandatory provision is based on universal bioethical principles such as beneficence and justice. Furthermore, difficulties associated with implementation of post-trial provision are not unmanageable. Careful advanced planning and a comprehensive partnership among relevant parties would be very helpful in solving these difficulties in practice, which therefore should not be taken as an excuse to escape post-trial responsibility. (shrink)

Objectives To analyse the perspective of clinical research stakeholders concerning post-trial access to study medication. Methods Questionnaires and informed consents were sent through e-mail to 599 ethics committee (EC) members, 290 clinical investigators (HIV/AIDS and Diabetes) and 53 sponsors in Brazil. Investigators were also asked to submit the questionnaire to their research patients. Two reminders were sent to participants. Results The response rate was 21%, 20% and 45% in EC, investigators and sponsors’ groups, respectively. 54 patients answered the (...) questionnaire through their doctors. The least informative item in the consent form was how to obtain the study medication after trial. If a benefit were demonstrated in the study, 60% of research participants and 35% of EC answered that all patients should continue receiving study medication after trial; 43% of investigators believed the medication should be given to participants, and 40% to subjects who participated and benefited from treatment. For 50% of the sponsors, study medication should be assured to participants who had benefited from treatment. The majority of responders answered that medication should be provided free by sponsors; investigators and sponsors believed the medication should be kept until available in the public health sector; EC members said that the patient should keep the benefit; patients answered that benefits should be assured for life. Conclusions Due to the study limitations, the results cannot be generalised; however, the data can contribute to discussion of this complex topic through analysing the views of stakeholders in clinical research in Brazil. (shrink)

Increasing ethical attention and debate is focusing on whether individuals who take part in clinical trials should be given access to post-trial care. However, the main focus of this debate has been upon drug trials undertaken in low-income settings. To broaden this debate, we report findings from interviews with individuals (n = 24) who participated in a clinical trial of a closed-loop system, which is a medical device under development for people with type 1 diabetes that automatically (...) adjusts blood glucose to help keep it within clinically recommended ranges. Individuals were recruited from UK sites and interviewed following trial close-out, at which point the closed-loop had been withdrawn. While individuals were stoical and accepting of the requirement to return the closed-loop, they also conveyed varying degrees of distress. Many described having relaxed diabetes management practices while using the closed-loop and having become deskilled as a consequence, which made reverting back to pre-trial regimens challenging. Participants also described unanticipated consequences arising from using a closed-loop. As well as deskilling, these included experiencing psychological and emotional benefits that could not be sustained after the closed-loop had been withdrawn and participants reevaluating their pre- and post-trial life in light of having used a closed-loop and now perceiving this life much more negatively. Participants also voiced frustrations about experiencing better blood glucose control using a closed-loop and then having to revert to using what they now saw as antiquated and imprecise self-management tools. We use these findings to argue that ethical debates about post-trial provisioning need to be broadened to consider potential psychological and emotional harms, and not just clinical harms, that may result from withdrawal of investigated treatments. We also suggest that individuals may benefit from information about potential nonclinical harms to help make informed decisions about trial participation. (shrink)

What are the moral obligations of participants and bystanders during—and in the wake of –a conflict? How have theoretical understandings of justice, peace and responsibility changed in the face of contemporary realities of war? Drawing on the work of leading scholars in the fields of philosophy, political theory, international law, religious studies and peace studies, the collection significantly advances current literature on war, justice and post-conflict reconciliation. Contributors address some of the most pressing issues of international and civil (...) conflict, including the tension between attributing individual and collective responsibility for the wrongs of war, the trade-offs made between the search for truth and demands for justice, and the conceptual intricacies of coming to understand just what is meant by ‘peace’ and ‘conflict.’ Individual essays also address concrete topics including the international criminal court, reparations, truces, political apologies, truth commissions and criminal trials, with an eye to contemporary examples from conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and North and South America.​. (shrink)

Background The post-trial period is the time period after the end of study drug administration. It is unclear whether post-trial arrangements for patient surveillance are routinely included in study protocols and consents, and whether research ethics boards (REB) consider the post-trial period. Objectives The objective was to determine whether trial protocols and consent forms reviewed by the REB describe procedures for post-trial period surveillance. Methods An observational study of protocols of randomised (...) trials of chronic therapies for cardiac conditions, approved by the REB of two academic institutions affiliated with the University of Toronto in Canada (University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital) from 1995 to 2007. Plans for patient surveillance in the post-trial period described in the protocol or in the consent form before and after REB approval were recorded. Results 42 studies were identified including 18 heart failure and 15 coronary artery disease trials. Only four studies planned a clinical visit after trial termination, and an additional three planned a telephone contact after trial completion. Five trials submitted consent forms to the REB with a discussion of the post-trial period. Conclusions The majority of protocols and consent forms did not discuss plans for post-trial period surveillance. The post-trial period and the REB approval process could be improved by systematic follow-up being described in the protocol and consent form. The small number of trial protocols evaluated in the study may impair the degree to which the results can be generalised. (shrink)

This book begins the discourse on post-trial access to drugs in developing countries. Underlying ethical issues in global health inequalities and global health research serve as the context of the debate. Due to rampant allegations of violations of rights of research participants, especially in developing countries, it discusses the regulatory infrastructure and ethical oversight of international clinical research, thus emphasizing the priority of safeguarding the rights of research participants and host populations as desiderata in conducting clinical trials in (...) developing countries. This is the first book that analyzes the major obstacles of affordable access to drugs in developing countries - patent and non-patent factors and how they can be overcome through a middle ground approach and a new paradigm to establish global health justice which includes national and global health responsibilities. The book also deals extensively with all complex aspects of the discourse on affordable access to drugs in developing countries, including intellectual property law, international regulations, political and cultural systems, international trade agreements. Furthermore it contains a robust ethical debate and in-depth analysis. The book crafts a paradigm of global health justice involving a sliding scale of national and global responsibilities for the realization of the right to health in general and access to drugs in particular. (shrink)

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The MRCT Center Post-trial Responsibilities: Continued Access to an Investigational Medicine Framework outlines a case-based, principled, stakeholder approach to evaluate and guide ethical responsibilities to provide continued access to an investigational medicine at the conclusion of a patient’s participation in a clinical trial. The Post-trial Responsibilities (PTR) Framework includes this Guidance Document as well as the accompanying Toolkit. A 41-member international multi-stakeholder Workgroup convened by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and (...) Women’s Hospital and Harvard University (MRCT Center) developed this Guidance and Toolkit. Project Motivation A number of international organizations have discussed the responsibilities stakeholders have to provide continued access to investigational medicines. The World Medical Association, for example, addressed post-trial access to medicines in Paragraph 34 of the Declaration of Helsinki (WMA, 2013): “In advance of a clinical trial, sponsors, researchers and host country governments should make provisions for post-trial access for all participants who still need an intervention identified as beneficial in the trial. This information must also be disclosed to participants during the informed consent process.” This paragraph and other international guidance documents converge on several consensus points: • Post-trial access (hereafter referred to as “continued access” in this Framework [for terminology clarification – see definitions]) is the responsibility of sponsors, researchers, and host country governments; • The plan for continued access should be determined before the trial begins, and before any individual gives their informed consent; • The protocol should delineate continued access plans; and • The plan should be transparent to potential participants and explained during the informed consent process. -/- However, there is no guidance on how to fulfill these responsibilities (i.e., linking specific responsibilities with specific stakeholders, conditions, and duration). To fill this gap, the MRCT Center convened a working group in September of 2014 to develop a framework to guide stakeholders with identified responsibilities. This resultant Framework sets forth applicable principles, approaches, recommendations and ethical rationales for PTR regarding continued access to investigational medicines for research participants. (shrink)

Background : researchers and sponsors increasingly confront the issue of whether participants in a clinical trial should have post-trial access (PTA) to the trial drug. Legislation and guidelines are inconsistent, ambiguous or silent about many aspects of PTA. Recent research highlights the potential importance of systematic reviews (SRs) of reason-based literatures in informing decision-making in medicine, medical research and health policy. Purpose: to systematically review reasons why drug trial participants should, or need not be ensured (...) PTA to the trial drug and the uses of such reasons. Data sources: databases in science/medicine, law and ethics, thesis databases, bibliographies, research ethics books and included publications’ notes/bibliographies. Publication selection: a publication was included if it included a reason as above. See article for detailed inclusion conditions. Data extraction and analysis: two reviewers extracted and analyzed data on publications and reasons. Results: of 2060 publications identified, 75 were included. These mentioned reasons based on morality, legality, interests/incentives, or practicality, comprising 36 broad (235 narrow) types of reason. None of the included publications, which included informal reviews and reports by official bodies, mentioned more than 22 broad (59 narrow) types. For many reasons, publications differed about the reason’s interpretation, implications and/or persuasiveness. Publications differed also regarding costs, feasibility and legality of PTA. Limitations: reason types could be applied differently. The quality of reasons was not measured. Conclusion: this review captured a greater variety of reasons and of their uses than any included publication. Decisions based on informal reviews or sub-sets of literature are likely to be biased. Research is needed on PTA ethics, costs, feasibility and legality and on assessing the quality of reason-based literature. (shrink)

Unregulated patient treatments and approved clinical trials have been conducted with haematopoietic stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells for children with autism spectrum disorder. While the former direct-to-consumer practice is usually considered rogue and should be legally constrained, regulated clinical trials could also be ethically questionable. Here, we outline principal objections against these trials as they are currently conducted. Notably, these often lack a clear rationale for how transplanted cells may confer a therapeutic benefit in ASD, and thus, have ill-defined (...) therapeutic outcomes. We posit that ambiguous and unsubstantiated descriptions of outcome from such clinical trials may nonetheless appeal to the lay public as being based on authentic scientific findings. These may further fuel caregivers of patients with ASD to pursue unregulated direct-to-consumer treatments, thus exposing them to unnecessary risks. There is, therefore, a moral obligation on the part of those regulating and conducting clinical trials of stem cell-based therapeutic for ASD minors to incorporate clear therapeutic targets, scientific rigour and reporting accuracy in their work. Any further stem cell-based trials for ASD unsupported by significant preclinical advances and particularly sound scientific hypothesis and aims would be ethically indefensible. (shrink)

Clinical trials are essential to establish the safety and efficacy of investigational products, contributing to risk/benefit assessments that ultimately determine whether these products meet the criteria for market authorisation. Clinical trials are also an important source of revenue and expertise generation for countries in which they are conducted. In developing countries, they represent substantial foreign direct investment. In spite of the substantial capital input that clinical trials require, the issue of funding post-trial access to beneficial therapies remains contentious, (...) especially in resource-limited settings. In this article, we explore this situation and propose mechanisms to establish ‘win-win’ situations where both patients and clinical trial sponsors derive benefit from post-trial access programmes in low- and middle-income countries. (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)

In their article published in Nanoethics, “Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Brain-Implants Using Nano-Scale Materials and Techniques”, Berger et al. suggest that there may be a prima facie moral obligation to improve neuro implants with nanotechnology given their possible therapeutic advantages for patients [Nanoethics, 2:241–249]. Although we agree with Berger et al. that developments in nanomedicine hold the potential to render brain implant technologies less invasive and to better target neural stimulation to respond to brain impairments in the near (...) future, we argue against presenting the development of nanobionic clinical devices in terms of a moral obligation to conduct this research. In the first part of the paper, we consider what a duty to pursue new technologies might mean, and in the second we explore some of the negative consequences of defending such development as a moral obligation based on potential benefit. We argue that promoting the advances available to brain implants through developments in nanotechnology and bionics could contribute to medical rhetoric that indirectly increases the risk of exposing patients to harm when participating in clinical trials. We argue that rather than there being a moral obligation to improve nanobionics implants because of their potential benefit, the pursuit of improved neuro implants must be balanced against the prima facie obligations to protect patients against harm and to promote and protect patient autonomy. (shrink)

The ethical value—and to some scholars, necessity—of providing trial patients with post-trial access (PTA) to an investigational drug has been subject to significant attention in the field of research ethics. Although no consensus has emerged, it seems clear that, in some trial contexts, various factors make PTA particularly appropriate. We outline the atypical aspects of psychedelic clinical trials that support the case for introducing the provision of PTA within research in this field, including the broader legal (...) status of psychedelics, the nature of the researcher-therapist/participant relationship, and the extended time-frame of the full therapeutic process. As is increasingly understood, the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is driven as much by extrapharmacological elements and the cultural therapeutic container as by the drug itself. As such, we also advocate for a refocusing of attention from post-trial access to a broader concept encompassing other elements of post-trial care. We provide an overview of some of the potential post-trial care provisions that may be appropriate in psychedelic clinical trials. Although the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki calls on researchers, sponsors, and governments to make provisions for post-trial access, such provision may feel impracticable or out-of-reach within psychedelic trials that are already constrained by a high resource demand and significant bureaucratic burden. We show how conceiving of post-trial provision as an integral site of the research process, and an appropriate destination for research funding, will serve to develop the infrastructure necessary for the post-legalisation psychedelic medicine ecosystem. (shrink)

Scholarship focusing on how international research can contribute to justice in global health has primarily explored requirements for the conduct of clinical trials. Yet health systems research in low- and middle-income countries has increasingly been identified as vital to the reduction of health disparities between and within countries. This paper expands an existing ethical framework based on the health capability paradigm – research for health justice – to externally-funded health systems research in LMICs. It argues that a specific form of (...) health systems research in LMICs is required if the enterprise is to advance global health equity. “Research for health justice” requirements for priority setting, research capacity strengthening, and post-study benefits in health systems research are derived in light of the field's distinctive characteristics. Specific obligations are established for external research actors, including governments, funders, sponsors, and investigators. How these framework requirements differ from those for international clinical research is discussed. (shrink)