Managing institutional conflicts: Stakeholder accounts of communication between conflict of interest and technology transfer offices.

There have been repeated calls for academic institutions to develop policies and procedures to manage institutional conflicts of interest (ICOI) arising from technology transfer activities. While prior research has examined adoption of ICOI policies by medical schools and universities, little is known about how these institutions handle ICOI in practice, hindering the development of evidence-based recommendations to improve ICOI management. To address this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 senior administrators responsible for research integrity and conflict of interest issues at academic institutions. Data were analyzed using a descriptive qualitative content analysis approach, combining flexible coding to index the interview data with close examination, interpretation, and synthesis of coded content. Participants identified communication and information sharing between conflict of interest (COI) and technology transfer (TT) offices as a critical factor in the effective management of ICOI and suggested several strategies to strengthen coordination between these offices. These findings suggest that academic research institutions could strengthen COI programs by taking measures to improve communication and information sharing between COI and TT offices.

The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research.

There is growing interest in using embedded research methods, particularly pragmatic clinical trials, to address well-known evidentiary shortcomings afflicting the health care system. Reviews of pragmatic clinical trials published between 2014 and 2019 found that 8.8% were conducted with waivers of informed consent; furthermore, the number of trials where consent is not obtained is increasing with time. From a regulatory perspective, waivers of informed consent are permissible when certain conditions are met, including that the study involves no more than minimal risk, that it could not practicably be carried out without a waiver, and that waiving consent does not violate participants' rights and welfare. Nevertheless, when research is conducted with a waiver of consent, several ethical challenges arise. We must consider how to: address empirical evidence showing that patients and members of the public generally prefer prospective consent, demonstrate respect for persons using tools other than consent, promote public trust and investigator integrity, and ensure an adequate level of participant protections. In this article, we use examples drawn from real pragmatic clinical trials to argue that prospective consultation with representatives of the target study population can address, or at least mitigate, many of the ethical challenges posed by waivers of informed consent. We also consider what consultation might involve to illustrate its feasibility and address potential objections.

The design and baseline characteristics for the HOPE Consortium Trial to reduce pain and opioid use in hemodialysis.

The HOPE Consortium Trial to Reduce Pain and Opioid Use in Hemodialysis (HOPE Trial) is a multicenter randomized trial addressing chronic pain among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease. The trial uses a sequential, multiple assignment design with a randomized component for all participants (Phase 1) and a non-randomized component for a subset of participants (Phase 2). During Phase 1, participants are randomized to Pain Coping Skills Training (PCST), an intervention designed to increase self-efficacy for managing pain, or Usual Care. PCST consists of weekly, live, coach-led cognitive behavioral therapy sessions delivered by video- or tele-conferencing for 12 weeks followed by daily interactive voice response sessions delivered by telephone for an additional 12 weeks. At 24 weeks (Phase 2), participants in both the PCST and Usual Care groups taking prescription opioid medications at an average dose of ≥20 morphine milligram equivalents per day are offered buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist with a more favorable safety profile than full-agonist opioids. All participants are followed for 36 weeks. The primary outcome is pain interference ascertained, for the primary analysis, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include additional patient-reported measures and clinical outcomes including falls, hospitalizations, and death. Exploratory outcomes include acceptability, tolerability, and efficacy of buprenorphine. The enrollment target of 640 participants was met 27 months after trial initiation. The findings of the trial will inform the management of chronic pain, a common and challenging issue for patients treated with maintenance hemodialysis. NCT04571619.

Enhancing social value considerations in prioritising publicly funded biomedical research: the vital role of peer review.

The main goal of publicly funded biomedical research is to generate social value through the creation and application of knowledge that can improve the well-being of current and future people. Prioritising research with the greatest potential social value is crucial for good stewardship of limited public resources and ensuring ethical involvement of research participants. At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), peer reviewers hold the expertise and responsibility for social value assessment and resulting prioritisation at the project level. However, previous research has shown that peer reviewers place more emphasis on a study's methods ('Approach') than on its potential social value (best approximated by the criterion of 'Significance'). Lower weighting of Significance may be due to reviewers' views on the relative importance of social value, their belief that social value is evaluated at other stages of the research priority-setting process or the lack of guidance on how to approach the challenging task of assessing expected social value. The NIH is currently revising its review criteria and how these criteria contribute to overall scores. To elevate the role of social value in priority setting, the agency should support empirical research on how peer reviewers approach the assessment of social value, provide more specific guidance for reviewing social value and experiment with alternative reviewer assignment strategies. These recommendations would help ensure that funding priorities align with the NIH's mission and the obligation of taxpayer-funded research to contribute to the public good.

Physician-Investigator, Research Coordinator, and Patient Perspectives on Dual-Role Consent in Oncology: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Classic statements of research ethics generally advise against dual-role consent in which physician-investigators seek consent for research participation from patients with whom they have preexisting treatment relationships. Yet dual-role consent is common in clinical oncology research, as studies are often conducted in close relationship with clinical care. Objective: To explore key stakeholders' perspectives on dual-role consent in clinical oncology trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study with 43 participants was conducted at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center from 2018 to 2022. Semistructured qualitative interviews of physician-investigators, research coordinators, and patients were performed. Respondents were recruited from 3 populations: (1) physician-investigators engaged in clinical oncology research; (2) research coordinators engaged in clinical oncology research; and (3) patients, with and without prior clinical trial experience, who had received a new cancer diagnosis at least 2 months prior to enrollment in this study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Interviews were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. A thematic analysis approach was used to develop a codebook that included both theory-driven, a priori codes and emergent, inductive codes. Two authors double-coded all transcripts and met regularly to compare coding, discuss discrepancies, refine the codebook, and draft memos describing relevant themes and their frequency. Results: Among the 43 respondents, 28 (65.1%) were female; 9 (20.9%) were African American, 8 (18.6%) were Asian, 6 (14.0%) were Hispanic, and 21 (48.8%) were White; 15 were physician-investigators (6 [40.0%] with 6-10 years of experience, 4 [26.7%] with at least 20 years of experience), 13 were research coordinators (5 [38.5%] with 0-5 years of experience, 5 [38.5%] with 6-10 years of experience), and 15 were patients (9 [60.0%] aged 46-64 years). Four main themes were found: interviewees (1) perceived greater potential for role synergy than for role conflict; (2) reported dual-role consent as having mixed effects on the consent process, increasing prospective participants' understanding and likelihood of agreement while also challenging voluntariness; (3) preferred a team-based approach to the consent process in which physician-investigators and research coordinators share responsibility for communicating with prospective participants and safeguarding voluntariness; and (4) offered strategies for managing tensions in dual-role consent. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study found that concerns about dual-role consent in clinical oncology, while valid, may be outweighed by corresponding advantages, particularly if appropriate mitigation strategies are in place. These findings support a team-based approach to informed consent, in which physician-investigators and research coordinators promote both the understanding and voluntariness of prospective participants.

Ethical Responsibilities for Companies That Process Personal Data.

It has become increasingly difficult for individuals to exercise meaningful control over the personal data they disclose to companies or to understand and track the ways in which that data is exchanged and used. These developments have led to an emerging consensus that existing privacy and data protection laws offer individuals insufficient protections against harms stemming from current data practices. However, an effective and ethically justified way forward remains elusive. To inform policy in this area, we propose the Ethical Data Practices framework. The framework outlines six principles relevant to the collection and use of personal data-minimizing harm, fairly distributing benefits and burdens, respecting autonomy, transparency, accountability, and inclusion-and translates these principles into action-guiding practical imperatives for companies that process personal data. In addition to informing policy, the practical imperatives can be voluntarily adopted by companies to promote ethical data practices.

Establishing a global regulatory floor for children's decisions about participation in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: Enrolling children in clinical trials typically requires parental or guardian permission and, when appropriate, child assent. Aligning requirements across jurisdictions would facilitate multisite pediatric trials. Guidance from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) is the best candidate for a global standard but would benefit from additional specification. METHODS: Ethical analysis of ICH guidance for permission and assent for pediatric trials, with recommendations for clarification. RESULTS: ICH guidance regarding permission and assent would be enhanced by additional detail in the following areas: (1) what information should be provided to parents, guardians, and children considering a trial, and how that information should be provided; (2) the definition of "assent," the criteria for when assent should be required, and the need to include children in discussions even when assent is not mandated; (3) criteria for requiring children's signatures indicating agreement; (4) greater specificity regarding children's right to decline or withdraw; and (5) clarification of when children's wish to decline or withdraw from participation may be overridden and of what the overriding process should entail. CONCLUSION: ICH guidance provides a global standard for decision making regarding children's participation in trials. Several clarifications would facilitate the conduct of multinational pediatric research. IMPACT: Enrolling children in clinical trials requires the permission of a parent/guardian ± the assent of the minor. Differing global regulatory requirements for enrolling children complicate the conduct of multicenter and multinational trials. The authors identify points of ambiguity and/or contradiction in the International Council for Harmonization guidelines and offer recommendations for a common ethical platform for conducting global pediatric research.

Monitoring Multiple U.S. Government-Supported Covid-19 Vaccine Trials.

Monitoring U.S. Government-Supported Covid-19 Vaccine TrialsOperation Warp Speed was a partnership created to accelerate the development of Covid-19 vaccines. The National Institutes of Health oversaw one data and safety monitoring board to review/monitor all Operation Warp Speed trials. This article describes the challenges faced in monitoring these trials and provides ideas for future similar endeavors.

Influence of Genetic Information on Neonatologists' Decisions: A Psychological Experiment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Genetic testing is expanding among ill neonates, yet the influence of genetic results on medical decision-making is not clear. With this study, we sought to determine how different types of genetic information with uncertain implications for prognosis influence clinicians' decisions to recommend intensive versus palliative care. METHODS: We conducted a national study of neonatologists using a split sample experimental design. The questionnaire contained 4 clinical vignettes. Participants were randomly assigned to see one of 2 versions that varied only regarding whether they included the following genetic findings: (1) a variant of uncertain significance; (2) a genetic diagnosis that affects neurodevelopment but not acute survival; (3) a genetic versus nongenetic etiology of equally severe pathology; (4) a pending genetic testing result. Physicians answered questions about recommendations they would make for the patient described in each vignette. RESULTS: Vignette versions that included a variant of uncertain significance, a diagnosis foreshadowing neurodevelopmental impairment, or a genetic etiology of disease were all associated with an increased likelihood of recommending palliative rather than intensive care. A pending genetic test result did not have a significant effect on care recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study of hypothetical cases suggest neonatologists apply uncertain genetic findings or those that herald neurodevelopmental disability in problematic ways. As genetic testing expands, understanding how it is used in decision-making and educating clinicians regarding appropriate use are paramount.

Patients' roles in governance of learning: Results from a qualitative study of 16 learning healthcare systems.

Patient and family engagement has been identified as key to fulfilling Learning Healthcare Systems' (LHSs') promise as a model for improving clinical care, catalyzing research, and controlling costs. Little is known, however, about the state of patient engagement in the learning mission of these systems or about what governance structures and processes facilitate such engagement. Here, we report on an interview study of 99 patient and employee leaders in 16 systems. We found both variable levels of engagement and broad agreement that shared governance of learning remains a work in progress. We also identified a range of practices that can support or thwart development of an organizational culture conducive to shared governance, including transparency, capacity building, infrastructure investment, leadership, attention to diversity of patient partners, and committee structures. In LHSs with most sophisticated shared governance, both employees and patients contribute to building a democratic learning culture.

Health Literacy and Clinical Outcomes Following Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation.

PURPOSE: To test associations between health literacy and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: English- and Spanish-speaking patients age ≥ 18 years were recruited while admitted for first allogeneic HSCT. Associations between low health literacy (Newest Vital Sign ≤ 3 or Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults ≤ 22) and HSCT outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of 177 participants had low health literacy by Newest Vital Sign. None had low health literacy by Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. There was no statistically significant difference between patients with low and adequate health literacy in hospital readmissions (60% v 54%, P = .4), 2-year overall survival (58% v 66%, P = .19), 2-year cumulative incidence of nonrelapse death (16% v 10%, P = .35), and acute graft-versus-host disease (53% v 44%, P = .3). In multivariable analyses, there were no significant associations between health literacy and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients undergoing HSCT, we did not identify a relationship between health literacy and clinical outcomes. Although we did not find statistically significant associations between health literacy and HSCT outcomes, interventions to address health literacy should be considered, given complex outpatient care and evidence for adverse outcomes associated with health literacy in similar diseases.

Historical trends in health care-related financial holdings among members of Congress.

BACKGROUND: Revelations that some members of Congress, including members of key health care committees, hold substantial personal investments in the health care industry have raised concerns about lawmakers' financial conflicts of interest (COI) and their potential impact on health care legislation and oversight. AIMS: 1) To assess historical trends in both the number of legislators holding health care-related assets and the value and composition of those assets. 2) To compare the financial holdings of members of health care-focused committees and subcommittees to those of other members of the House and Senate. METHODS: We analyzed 11 years of personal financial disclosures by all members of the House and Senate. For each year, we calculated the percentage of members holding a health care-related asset (overall, by party, and by committee); the total value of all assets and health care-related assets held; the mean and median values of assets held per member; and the share of asset values attributable to 9 health asset categories. FINDINGS: During the study period, over a third of all members of Congress held health care-related assets. These assets were often substantial, with a median total value per member of over $43,000. Members of health care-focused committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate did not hold health care-related assets at a higher rate than other members of their respective chambers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that lawmakers' health care-related COI warrant the same level of attention that has been paid to the COI of other actors in the health care system.

Data and Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials.

To speed the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the United States Federal Government has funded multiple phase 3 trials of candidate vaccines. A single 11-member data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) monitors all government-funded trials to ensure coordinated oversight, promote harmonized designs, and allow shared insights related to safety across trials. DSMB reviews encompass 3 domains: (1) the conduct of trials, including overall and subgroup accrual and data quality and completeness; (2) safety, including individual events of concern and comparisons by randomized group; and (3) interim analyses of efficacy when event-driven milestones are met. Challenges have included the scale and pace of the trials, the frequency of safety events related to the combined enrollment of over 100 000 participants, many of whom are older adults or have comorbid conditions that place them at independent risk of serious health events, and the politicized environment in which the trials have taken place.

Prospect of Direct Benefit in Pediatric Trials: Practical Challenges and Potential Solutions.

Clinical research in pediatric patients is necessary to develop safe and effective medicines for children. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) human subject protection regulations (21 Code of Federal Regulations 50, subpart D) require that, with limited exceptions, research in children that exceeds a defined level of risk must offer a prospect of direct benefit to the individual child that is sufficient to justify those risks. Growing attention to the merits of initiating pediatric clinical trials earlier in the drug and biological product development process has led the FDA to look more closely at the meaning of the regulatory term prospect of direct benefit. In collaboration with the FDA, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy convened a workshop with leading experts in the fields of biomedical ethics, pediatric clinical research, and pediatric product development, as well as patient representatives, to discuss the FDA's approach to characterizing prospect of direct benefit in the context of scientific advances in product development. Workshop topics included the extrapolation of adult efficacy data to children, use of nonclinical models of disease, use of modeling and simulation to support pediatric dosing, and reliance on biomarkers and surrogate end points in clinical research. Discussion from the workshop is provided herein to communicate the challenges that investigators, industry sponsors, regulators, and institutional review boards face when evaluating pediatric research and to outline several approaches to maximize prospect of direct benefit, minimize unnecessary risks and burden, and facilitate timely access to safe and effective medicines for children.

Allocating scarce life-saving resources: the proper role of age.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced clinicians, policy-makers and the public to wrestle with stark choices about who should receive potentially life-saving interventions such as ventilators, ICU beds and dialysis machines if demand overwhelms capacity. Many allocation schemes face the question of whether to consider age. We offer two underdiscussed arguments for prioritising younger patients in allocation policies, which are grounded in prudence and fairness rather than purely in maximising benefits: prioritising one's younger self for lifesaving treatments is prudent from an individual perspective, and prioritising younger patients works to narrow health disparities by giving priority to patients at risk of dying earlier in life, who are more likely to be subject to systemic disadvantage. We then identify some confusions in recent arguments against considering age.

An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials.

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.