Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection.

Although the principle of fair subject selection is a widely recognized requirement of ethical clinical research, it often yields conflicting imperatives, thus raising major ethical dilemmas regarding participant selection. In this paper, we diagnose the source of this problem, arguing that the principle of fair subject selection is best understood as a bundle of four distinct sub-principles, each with normative force and each yielding distinct imperatives: (1) fair inclusion; (2) fair burden sharing; (3) fair opportunity; and (4) fair distribution of third-party risks. We first map out these distinct sub-principles, and then identify the ways in which they yield conflicting imperatives for the design of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the recruitment of participants. We then offer guidance for how decision makers should navigate these conflicting imperatives to ensure that participants are selected fairly.

Ethical considerations for outcome-adaptive trial designs: a clinical researcher's perspective.

In a typical comparative clinical trial the randomization scheme is fixed at the beginning of the study, and maintained throughout the course of the trial. A number of researchers have championed a randomized trial design referred to as 'outcome-adaptive randomization.' In this type of trial, the likelihood of a patient being enrolled to a particular arm of the study increases or decreases as preliminary information becomes available suggesting that treatment may be superior or inferior. While the design merits of outcome-adaptive trials have been debated, little attention has been paid to significant ethical concerns that arise in the conduct of such studies. These include loss of equipoise, lack of processes for adequate informed consent, and inequalities inherent in the research design which could lead to perceptions of injustice that may have negative implications for patients and the research enterprise. This article examines the ethical difficulties inherent in outcome-adaptive trials.

The Exploitation of Drug Users.

Drug users have been exploited in research studies and clinical practice. We explore ways in which exploitation has occurred and strategies to help patients, research subjects and communities to prevent or avoid exploitation.

Decision making for invasive and non-invasive optional procedures within an acute HIV research cohort in Bangkok.

Clinical research regularly includes required, nontherapeutic procedures to answer research questions. Optional procedures usually offer minimal or no personal benefit and may involve harms and burdens. Members from the Bangkok SEARCH010/RV254 HIV research cohort of individuals acutely HIV-infected are recruited to six optional procedures varying in invasiveness: leukapheresis, genital secretions collection, lumbar puncture, brain MRI/MRS/DTI, colon biopsy, and lymph node biopsy. We surveyed cohort members about their first recruitment for each procedure to examine factors associated with decision making and attitudes about compensation. 406 members (68%) completed the survey. Reported procedure participation ranged from 71% (MRI) to 27% (lymph node biopsy). Respondents underwent 0-6 procedure types (median 3). Ordinal regression indicated that lower perceived HIV impact and HIV remission trial participation were associated with more procedures completed. Reports of decision difficulty varied, and feeling pressured by research staff was low overall. Notably, those who declined procedures and those who underwent more invasive procedures reported greater decision difficulty and perceived pressure. Most respondents felt compensation amounts were appropriate, although opinions differed by procedure, and for some procedures, between people who agreed and declined. There is limited literature regarding consent to and attitudes about optional research procedures. Researchers must consider how to best support voluntary decisions for procedures with little personal benefit, particularly in lower-income or marginalized populations. In this longitudinal research cohort, perceived pressure to participate may be a concern, although our finding of variation in participation rates corresponding to invasiveness is reassuring. Data from different research contexts would provide important comparators.

Indirect Benefits in HIV Cure Clinical Research: A Qualitative Analysis.

Currently, much of early phase HIV cure research involves unknown and potentially serious risks, with little or no chance of direct health benefits. During informed consent, researchers emphasize this lack of personal medical benefit to minimize misconceptions that undermine genuine consent. We explored participants' and researchers' perspectives on HIV cure clinical research participation and its potential benefits. We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 HIV cure research participants and nine researchers in North Carolina, USA. We analyzed interviews to identify participant experience-related themes. We were particularly interested in indirect benefits, such as psychological support or improved care. We also assessed five consent documents for benefit/risk-related language. Research participants were male, with a median age of 50 (range: 28-62); most were non-Hispanic white (15/17) and men who have sex with men (13/17). All 17 trial participants found research participation meaningful and beneficial. Reported benefits included improved healthcare (16/17), HIV knowledge (13/17), intimate relationships (10/17), and positive behaviors (6/17). In addition, all participants described psychological benefits, including increased positive outlook, improved sense of purpose, emotional support, and enriched self-image. Participants reported risks such as quality of life concerns, uncomfortable procedures (e.g., leukapheresis), latency reversal, and HIV status disclosure. While the consent documents included discussion of these and other risks, they did not mention potential indirect benefits. Individuals involved in HIV clinical research have recognized participant psychological, social, and behavioral benefits. We recommend that researchers and institutional review boards consider these benefits for inclusion during risk/benefit assessments, consent procedures, and other discussions with prospective participants.

Handling of informed consent and patient inclusion in research with geriatric trauma patients - a matter of protection or disrespect?

BACKGROUND: Despite the aging of numerous societies and future health care challenges, clinical research in the elderly is underrepresented. The aim of this review was to analyze the current practice exemplary in gerontotraumatology and to discuss potential improvements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was performed in 2016 based on a PubMed search for gerontotraumatologic studies published between 2005 and 2015. Trials were evaluated for methodology and ethical and age-related aspects. RESULTS: The search revealed 649 articles, 183 of which met the inclusion criteria. The age range for inclusion was heterogeneous; one-third of trials included patients <65 years and only 11% excluded very elderly. Seventy-four trials excluded patients with typical comorbidities, with 55% of these without stating scientific reasons. Frailty was assessed in 94 trials and defined as the exclusion criterion in 66 of them. Informed consent (IC) was reportedly obtained in 144 trials; descriptions of the IC process mostly remained vague. Substitute decision making was described in 19 trials; the consenting party remained unclear in 45 articles. Diagnosed dementia was a primary exclusion criterion in 31% of the trials. Seventeen trials assessed decisional capacity before inclusion, with six using specific assessments. CONCLUSION: Many trials in gerontotraumatology exclude relevant subgroups of patients, and thus risk presenting biased estimates of the relevant treatment effects. Exclusion based on age, cognitive impairment, or other exhaustive exclusion criteria impedes specific scientific progress in the treatment of elderly patients. Meaningful trials could profit from a staged, transparent approach that fosters shared decision making. Rethinking current policies is indispensable to improve treatment and care of elderly trauma patients and to protect study participants and researchers alike.

Evaluation of Research Ethics Committees: Criteria for the Ethical Quality of the Review Process.

Repeatedly, adequacy, performance and quality of Ethics Committees that oversee medical research trials are being discussed. Although they play a crucial role in reviewing medical research and protecting human subjects, it is far from clear to what degree they fulfill the task they have been assigned to. This eventuates in the call for an evaluation of their activity and, in some places, led to the establishment of accreditation schemes. At the same time, IRBs have become subject of detailed legislation in the process of the ongoing global juridification of medical research. Unsurprisingly, there is a tendency to understand the evaluation of RECs as a question of controlling their legal compliance. This paper discusses the need for a quality evaluation of IRBs from an ethical point of view and, by systematically reviewing the major ethical guidelines for IRBs, proposes a system of criteria that should orientate any evaluation of IRBs.