Which Benefits Can Justify Risks in Research?

Research ethics committees (RECs) evaluate whether the risk-benefit ratio of a study is acceptable. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are a novel approach for conducting clinical trials that potentially bring important benefits for research, including several collateral benefits. The position of collateral benefits in risk-benefit assessments is currently unclear. DCTs raise therefore questions about how these benefits should be assessed. This paper aims to reconsider the different types of research benefits, and their position in risk-benefit assessments. We first propose a categorization of research benefits, based on the types of benefits that can be distinguished from the literature and ethical guidelines. Secondly, we will reconsider the position of collateral benefits. We argue that these benefits are not fundamentally different from other benefits of research and can therefore be included in risk-benefit assessments of DCTs.

The Ethics of Decentralized Clinical Trials and Informed Consent: Taking Technologies' Soft Impacts into Account.

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) have the potential to advance the conduct of clinical trials, but raise several ethical issues, including obtaining valid informed consent. The debate on the ethical issues resulting from digitalization is predominantly focused on direct risks relating to for example data protection, safety, and data quality. We submit however, that a broader view on ethical aspects of DCTs is needed to touch upon the new challenges that come with the DCT practice. Digitalization has impacts that go beyond its direct purposes, by shaping behaviors, experiences, social relations, and values. We examine four elements of the informed consent procedure that are affected by DCTs, while taking these soft impacts of technologies into account: (i) informing participants and testing understanding, (ii) freedoms in relation to responsibilities and burdens, (iii) trust in participant-researcher relations, and (iv) impacts on the concept of privacy. Our analysis reveals that a broad view is key for optimal conduct of DCTs. In addition, it provides insight into the ethical impacts of DCTs on informed consent. Technologies such as DCTs potentially have profound impacts which are not immediately addressed by the existing regulatory frameworks, but nonetheless important to recognize. These findings can guide future practices of DCTs to foster the important values of clinical research in this novel approach for conducting clinical trials.

Experiences and perceptions of continuous deep sedation: An interview study among Dutch patients and relatives.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of continuous deep sedation (CDS) has more than doubled over the last decade in The Netherlands, while reasons for this increase are not fully understood. Patients and relatives have an essential role in deciding on CDS. We hypothesize that the increase in CDS practice is related to the changing role of patients and relatives in deciding on CDS. OBJECTIVE: To describe perceptions and experiences of patients and relatives with regard to CDS. This insight may help professionals and policymakers to better understand and respond to the evolving practice of CDS. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were held with patients and relatives who had either personal experience with CDS as a relative or had contemplated CDS for themselves. RESULTS: The vast majority of respondents appreciated CDS as a palliative care option, and none of the respondents reported (moral) objections to CDS. The majority of respondents prioritized avoiding suffering at the end of life. The patients and families generally considered CDS a palliative care option for which they can choose. Likewise, according to our respondents, the decision to start CDS was made by them, instead of the physician. Negative experiences with CDS care were mostly related to loss of sense of agency, due to insufficient communication or information provision by healthcare professionals. Lack of continuity of care was also a source of distress. We observed a variety in the respondents' understanding of the distinction between CDS and other end-of-life care decisions, including euthanasia. Some perceived CDS as hastening death. CONCLUSION: The traditional view of CDS as a last resort option for a physician to relieve a patient's suffering at the end of life is not explicit among patients and relatives. Instead, our results show that they perceive CDS as a regular palliative care option. Along with this normalization of CDS, patients and relatives claim a substantial say in the decision-making and are mainly motivated by a wish to avoid suffering and exercise control at the end of life. These distinct views on CDS of patients, their relatives and healthcare providers should be reconciled in guidelines and protocols for CDS. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of the authors in our team (G. H.) has experience with CDS as a relative and ensured that the patient/relative viewpoint was adequately reflected in the design and conduct of our study. In the preliminary phase of our study, G. H. adjusted the topic list so it was better adapted to the current practice of CDS. During the data analysis, G. H. read several interviews and took part in the open and critical discussion on central themes and core concepts as an important member of the author team, thereby guaranteeing the central position of the patient/relative perspective in our final research outcome.

The reimbursement for expensive medicines: stakeholder perspectives on the SMA medicine nusinersen and the Dutch Coverage Lock policy.

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement for expensive medicines poses a growing challenge to healthcare worldwide. In order to increase its control over the costs of medicines, the Dutch government introduced the Coverage Lock (CL) policy in 2015. The CL postpones decisions regarding reimbursement of expensive medicines until detailed advice on i.e., cost-effectiveness has been given. The CL has been in place for six years, has raised many questions and concerns, but currently, no evaluation is known to the authors. A better understanding of the effects of the CL on all stakeholders involved may contribute to reflections on the CL process and help find ways to improve it. An evaluation of Dutch policy will also be relevant for other countries that aim to optimize reimbursement procedures for expensive treatments. To perform this evaluation, we focused on the CL procedure for the medicine nusinersen. Nusinersen is the first treatment for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Following EMA approval in May 2017, it was placed in the CL. The analysis of cost-effectiveness and added therapeutic value resulted in an advice for reimbursement limited to children younger than 9.5 years at the start of treatment; this was implemented from August 2018 onwards. METHODS: Qualitative stakeholder perspective analysis of the CL procedure focusing on nusinersen with 15 stakeholders. RESULTS: Stakeholders raised key issues of the CL based on their experience with nusinersen: emotional impact of the CL, duration of the CL procedure, appropriateness of the CL procedure for different types of medicines, transparency of the CL, a wish for patient-centred decision-making and the lack of uniformity of access to expensive treatments. DISCUSSION: Stakeholders supported measures to control healthcare expenses and to ensure reasonable pricing. They considered the delay in access to therapies and lack of procedural transparency to be the main challenges to the CL. Stakeholders also agreed that the interests of patients deserve more attention in the practical implementation of the reimbursement decision. Stakeholders suggested a number of adjustments to improve the CL, such as a faster start with conditional reimbursement programs to ensure access and intensify European collaboration to speed up the assessment of the medicine.

The social licence for data-intensive health research: towards co-creation, public value and trust.

BACKGROUND: The rise of Big Data-driven health research challenges the assumed contribution of medical research to the public good, raising questions about whether the status of such research as a common good should be taken for granted, and how public trust can be preserved. Scandals arising out of sharing data during medical research have pointed out that going beyond the requirements of law may be necessary for sustaining trust in data-intensive health research. We propose building upon the use of a social licence for achieving such ethical governance. MAIN TEXT: We performed a narrative review of the social licence as presented in the biomedical literature. We used a systematic search and selection process, followed by a critical conceptual analysis. The systematic search resulted in nine publications. Our conceptual analysis aims to clarify how societal permission can be granted to health research projects which rely upon the reuse and/or linkage of health data. These activities may be morally demanding. For these types of activities, a moral legitimation, beyond the limits of law, may need to be sought in order to preserve trust. Our analysis indicates that a social licence encourages us to recognise a broad range of stakeholder interests and perspectives in data-intensive health research. This is especially true for patients contributing data. Incorporating such a practice paves the way towards an ethical governance, based upon trust. Public engagement that involves patients from the start is called for to strengthen this social licence. CONCLUSIONS: There are several merits to using the concept of social licence as a guideline for ethical governance. Firstly, it fits the novel scale of data-related risks; secondly, it focuses attention on trustworthiness; and finally, it offers co-creation as a way forward. Greater trust can be achieved in the governance of data-intensive health research by highlighting strategic dialogue with both patients contributing the data, and the public in general. This should ultimately contribute to a more ethical practice of governance.

Prevalence and characteristics of older adults with a persistent death wish without severe illness: a large cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Some older persons develop a persistent death wish without being severely ill, often referred to as "completed life" or "tiredness of life". In the Netherlands and Belgium, the question whether these persons should have legal options for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS) is intensely debated. Our main aim was to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of older adults with a persistent death wish without severe illness, as the lack of this knowledge is a crucial problem in de debate. METHODS: We conducted a survey among a representative sample of 32,477 Dutch citizens aged 55+, comprising questions about health, existential issues and the nature of the death wish. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the group with a persistent death wish and no severe illness (PDW-NSI) and several subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 21,294 respondents completed the questionnaire (response rate 65.6%). We identified 267 respondents (1.25%) as having a persistent death wish and no severe illness (PDW-NSI). PDW-NSI did not only occur among the oldest old. Although qualifying themselves as "not severely ill", those with PDW-NSI reported considerable health problems. A substantial minority of the PDW-NSI-group reported having had a death wish their whole lives. Within the group PDW-NSI 155 (0.73%) respondents had an active death wish, of which 36 (0.17% of the total response) reported a wish to actually end their lives. Thus, a death wish did not always equal a wish to actually end one's life. Moreover, the death wishes were often ambiguous. For example, almost half of the PDW-NSI-group (49.1%) indicated finding life worthwhile at this moment. CONCLUSIONS: The identified characteristics challenge the dominant "completed life" or "tiredness of life" image of healthy persons over the age of 75 who, overseeing their lives, reasonably decide they would prefer to die. The results also show that death wishes without severe illness are often ambiguous and do not necessarily signify a wish to end one's life. It is of great importance to acknowledge these nuances and variety in the debate and in clinical practice, to be able to adequately recognize the persons involved and tailor to their needs.

Ethics and the marketing authorization of pharmaceuticals: what happens to ethical issues discovered post-trial and pre-marketing authorization?

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 (henceforth, application/s) of drugs submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 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 (issues related to informed consent, research ethics committees, and respect for persons). Only findings graded at least major by the inspectorate were included. Lastly, to identify how many of the ethically relevant findings (ERFs) 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 (56.9%). 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.

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

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

Big data from electronic health records for early and late translational cardiovascular research: challenges and potential.

Aims: Cohorts of millions of people's health records, whole genome sequencing, imaging, sensor, societal and publicly available data present a rapidly expanding digital trace of health. We aimed to critically review, for the first time, the challenges and potential of big data across early and late stages of translational cardiovascular disease research. Methods and results: We sought exemplars based on literature reviews and expertise across the BigData@Heart Consortium. We identified formidable challenges including: data quality, knowing what data exist, the legal and ethical framework for their use, data sharing, building and maintaining public trust, developing standards for defining disease, developing tools for scalable, replicable science and equipping the clinical and scientific work force with new inter-disciplinary skills. Opportunities claimed for big health record data include: richer profiles of health and disease from birth to death and from the molecular to the societal scale; accelerated understanding of disease causation and progression, discovery of new mechanisms and treatment-relevant disease sub-phenotypes, understanding health and diseases in whole populations and whole health systems and returning actionable feedback loops to improve (and potentially disrupt) existing models of research and care, with greater efficiency. In early translational research we identified exemplars including: discovery of fundamental biological processes e.g. linking exome sequences to lifelong electronic health records (EHR) (e.g. human knockout experiments); drug development: genomic approaches to drug target validation; precision medicine: e.g. DNA integrated into hospital EHR for pre-emptive pharmacogenomics. In late translational research we identified exemplars including: learning health systems with outcome trials integrated into clinical care; citizen driven health with 24/7 multi-parameter patient monitoring to improve outcomes and population-based linkages of multiple EHR sources for higher resolution clinical epidemiology and public health. Conclusion: High volumes of inherently diverse ('big') EHR data are beginning to disrupt the nature of cardiovascular research and care. Such big data have the potential to improve our understanding of disease causation and classification relevant for early translation and to contribute actionable analytics to improve health and healthcare.

Ethics of Informed Consent for Pragmatic Trials with New Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Pragmatic trials evaluate the comparative benefits, risks, and burdens of health care interventions in real-world conditions. Such studies are now recognized as valuable to the perimarketing stage of drug development and evaluation, with early pragmatic trials (EPTs) being explored as a means to generate real-world evidence at the time of regulatory market approval. In this article, we present an analysis of the ethical issues involved in informed consent for EPTs, in light of the generally recognized concern that traditional ethical rules governing randomized clinical trials, such as lengthy informed consent procedures, could threaten the "real world" nature of such trials. Specifically, we examine to what extent modifications (waivers or alterations) to regulatory consent for EPTs would be ethical. METHODS: We first identify broadly accepted necessary conditions for modifications of informed consent (namely, the research involves no more than minimal risk of harm, the research is impracticable with regulatory consent, and the alternative to regulatory consent does not violate legitimate patient expectations) and then apply those criteria to the premarket and early postmarket contexts. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The analysis shows that neither waivers nor alterations of regulatory consent for premarket EPTs will be ethically permissible. For postmarket EPTs with newly approved interventions, waivers of consent will be ethically problematic, but some studies might be conducted in an ethical manner with alterations to regulatory consent.

Advance directives, proxy opinions, and treatment restrictions in patients with severe stroke.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe stroke often do not have the capacity to participate in discussions on treatment restrictions because of a reduced level of consciousness, aphasia, or another cognitive disorder. We assessed the role of advance directives and proxy opinions in the decision-making process of incapacitated patients. METHODS: Sixty patients with severe functional dependence (Barthel Index ≤6) at day four after ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage were included in a prospective two-center cohort study. The decision-making process with respect to treatment restrictions was assessed by means of a semi-structured questionnaire administered to the treating physician at the day of inclusion. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (82%) did not have the capacity to participate in the decision-making process. In eight patients, there was no discussion on treatment restrictions and full care was installed. In 41 patients, the decision whether to install treatment restrictions was discussed with proxies. One patient had a written advance directive. In the remaining 40 patients, proxies based their opinion on previously expressed wishes of the patient (18 patients) or advised in the best interest of the patient (22 patients). In 36 of 41 patients, treatment restrictions were installed after agreement between physician and proxy. At six months, 23 of 49 patients had survived. In only three of them the decision on treatment restrictions was based on previously expressed wishes. Remarkably, two of these survivors could not recall any of their alleged previously expressed wishes. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment restrictions were installed in the majority of incapacitated patients after stroke. Proxy opinions frequently served as the best way to respect the patients' autonomy, but their accuracy remains unclear.

Participatory methods in pediatric participatory research: a systematic review.

Meaningful child participation in medical research is seen as important. In order to facilitate further development of participatory research, we performed a systematic literature study to describe and assess the available knowledge on participatory methods in pediatric research. A search was executed in five databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cochrane. After careful screening of relevant papers, finally 24 documents were included in our analysis. Literature on participatory methods in pediatric research appears generally to be descriptive, whereby high-quality evidence is lacking. Overall, five groups of participatory methods for children could be distinguished: observational, verbal, written, visual, and active methods. The choice for one of these methods should be based on the child's age, on social and demographic characteristics, and on the research objectives. To date, these methods are still solely used for obtaining data, yet they are suitable for conducting meaningful participation. This may result in a successful partnership between children and researchers. Researchers conducting participatory research with children can use this systematic review in order to weigh the current knowledge about the participatory methods presented.

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

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

Assistance in dying for older people without a serious medical condition who have a wish to die: a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch euthanasia law regulates physician assistance in dying for patients who are suffering unbearably from a medical condition. We studied the attitudes of the Dutch population to assistance in dying for older persons who have a wish to die without the presence of a serious medical condition. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among a random sample of the Dutch public (response rate 78%, n=1960), using statements and vignettes about attitudes to assistance in dying for older persons who are tired of living. RESULTS: A minority of 26% agreed with a vignette in which a physician warrants the request for physician-assisted suicide of an older person who is tired of living without having a serious medical condition. Furthermore, 21% agreed with the statement 'In my opinion euthanasia should be allowed for persons who are tired of living without having a serious disease'. People supporting euthanasia for older persons who are tired of living were more likely than opponents to be highly educated (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.3), to be non-religious (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3), to have little trust in physicians (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.2), and to prefer to make their own healthcare decisions (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3). CONCLUSIONS: Although it is lower than the level of support for assistance in dying for patients whose suffering is rooted in a serious medical condition, our finding that a substantial minority of the general public supports physician assistance in dying for older people who are tired of living implies that this topic may need to be taken seriously in the debate about end-of-life decision-making.

Opinions about euthanasia and advanced dementia: a qualitative study among Dutch physicians and members of the general public.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch law states that a physician may perform euthanasia according to a written advance euthanasia directive (AED) when a patient is incompetent as long as all legal criteria of due care are met. This may also hold for patients with advanced dementia. We investigated the differing opinions of physicians and members of the general public on the acceptability of euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 16 medical specialists, 19 general practitioners, 16 elderly physicians and 16 members of the general public were interviewed and asked for their opinions about a vignette on euthanasia based on an AED in a patient with advanced dementia. RESULTS: Members of the general public perceived advanced dementia as a debilitating and degrading disease. Physicians emphasized the need for direct communication with the patient when making decisions about euthanasia. Respondent from both groups acknowledged difficulties in the assessment of patients' autonomous wishes and the unbearableness of their suffering. CONCLUSION: Legally, an AED may replace direct communication with patients about their request for euthanasia. In practice, physicians are reluctant to forego adequate verbal communication with the patient because they wish to verify the voluntariness of patients' request and the unbearableness of suffering. For this reason, the applicability of AEDs in advanced dementia seems limited.

Patient representatives' contributions to the benefit-risk assessment tasks of the European Medicines Agency scientific committees.

In the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the involvement of patients has been increasingly recognized as valuable and necessary. Specifically in scientific committees, patients through patient representatives are actively involved in deliberations and decision making processes. These scientific committees are meant to ensure that licensed medicines have a positive benefit-risk ratio in favour of the patients and users. To investigate what the contributions are of patient representatives in benefit-risk assessment, we interviewed 15 scientific committee members, 10 of whom are/were EU-state regulatory representatives and five are/were patient representatives. We asked the participants questions related to the benefit-risk assessment tasks of their committees, the connection between patient representatives and the patient perspective, and the contribution of patient representatives in the various benefit-risk assessments tasks. We found that the contribution of patient representatives benefit-risk assessment may be a variable of the benefits and the risks involved in the drug such that the necessity of their contribution is strongly felt when both benefits and risks are high, when benefits are almost equal or are equal to risks and when both benefits and risks are low. In terms of the various benefit-risk tasks, patient representatives contribute to benefit-risk analysis by providing criteria that help define the benefit-risk picture. In benefit-risk evaluation, patient representatives aid in providing a specific basis for the values and weights given to specific benefits and risks and in decision making, they provide what may be a crucial patient perspective in terms of the acceptability of risks. Hence, patient representatives provide a specific expertise in these scientific committees.

The fiduciary obligation of the physician-researcher in phase IV trials.

BACKGROUND: In this manuscript, we argue that within the context of phase IV, physician-researchers retain their fiduciary obligation to treat the patient-participants. DISCUSSION: We 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.

Balancing ethical norms and duties for the introduction of new medicines through conditional marketing authorization: a research agenda.

The European Medicines Agency's conditional marketing authorization (CMA) aims to expedite patient access to medicines for unmet medical needs by shifting a part of the drug development process post-authorization. We highlight ethical issues surrounding CMA, comprising (i) the complexity of defining unmet medical need; (ii) poor understanding of CMA and its impact on informed consent; (iii) hope versus unrealistic optimism; (iv) implications of prolonged post-authorization studies and potential patient harm; (v) rights and duties of patients surrounding participation in post-authorization studies; (vi) access to previously authorized CMA medicines; and (vii) the "benefit slippage" phenomenon, defined as the gradual shift of strict criteria to less strict criteria. We propose a comprehensive research agenda to address these ethical issues, and stress the need for multi-stakeholder engagement to ensure patient-centered use of CMA.

Consent in psychiatric biobanks for pharmacogenetic research.

In psychiatric practice, pharmacogenetics has the potential to identify patients with an increased risk of unsatisfactory drug responses. Genotype-guided treatment adjustments may increase benefits and reduce harm in these patients; however, pharmacogenetic testing is not (yet) common practice and more pharmacogenetic research in psychiatric patients is warranted. An important precondition for this type of research is the establishment of biobanks. In this paper, we argue that, for the storage of samples in psychiatric biobanks, waiving of consent is not ethically justifiable since the risks cannot be considered minimal and the argument of impracticability does not apply. An opt-out consent procedure is also not justifiable, since it presumes competence while the decisional competence of psychiatric patients needs to be carefully evaluated. We state that an enhanced opt-in consent procedure is ethically necessary, i.e. a procedure that supports the patients' decision-making at the time when the patient is most competent. Nevertheless, such a procedure is not the traditional exhaustive informed consent procedure, since this is not feasible in the case of biobanking.

Phase IV non-inferiority trials and additional claims of benefit.

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority (NI) trials in drug research are used to demonstrate that a new treatment is not less effective than an active comparator. Since phase IV trials typically aim at informing a clinical decision, the value of a phase IV non-inferiority trial hinges also on its clinical relevance. In such trials, clinical relevance would refer to the added benefit claims of a specific drug, apart from efficacy, relative to its comparator drug in the trial. METHODS: In this study, we reviewed 41 phase IV trials and extracted information on whether the authors mentioned any additional benefit beyond the NI (efficacy) claim of the drug and whether the additional benefit was proven in the trial. We checked whether the additional claim was based on descriptions only or on formal statistical analyses. RESULTS: Our results showed that 22 out of the 41 NI trials mentioned additional benefit of the test drug and most of these claims were related to the safety profile. Of all the post-authorization NI trials that claimed additional benefit, 10 out of 22 NI trials used formal statistical analyses to show additional benefit, and only one included a sample size calculation for the additional benefit prior to the trial. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is room for improvement in terms of designing phase IV NI trials with added benefit claims and in proving these additional claims.