How to keep high-risk studies ethical: classifying candidate solutions.

This article lays out a wide spectrum of candidate ethical solutions for the challenge on which this JME symposium focuses: the benefit:risk ratio challenge to some early-phase HIV cure and remission studies. These candidate solutions fall into four categories: ones that seek to reduce risks in early-phase HIV cure and remission studies, ones that enhance the benefits for these studies' participants (or show that those were adequate in the first place), ones that focus on participants' free and informed consent to participate and ones according to whom the large benefits to non-participants can defeat considerations about individual participant net risks. In so doing, this article also structures the rest of the symposium.

Cure research and consent: the Mississippi Baby, Barney Clark, Baby Fae and Martin Delaney.

Trials using children as subjects are much more problematic from an informed consent perspective than trials on competent adults, although the 'therapeutic misconception' is a central concern in both. The role of famous experiments and the use of one individual's experience to designate and justify a whole category of research have always threatened to undermine the validity of informed consent to research by making it seem to be a validated therapy. In research, the unintended consequence of 'naming' based on goals ('cure') or specific individuals (like the Mississippi Baby) tends to subvert informed consent when the famous case is a 'success', and to prematurely end a line of research if the named subject dies. Names, including the Mississippi Baby, Barney Clark, Baby Fae and even Martin Delaney, are more suggestive of fantasy than science. The word 'cure' should not be used in obtaining consent for HIV 'cure trials', and names of people involved in past experiments should be avoided in the informed consent process. These two modest proposals should reduce the risks of the therapeutic misconception in 'cure research'.

An activist's argument that participant values should guide risk-benefit ratio calculations in HIV cure research.

The patient empowerment movement, spurred by AIDS activism in the 1980s, quickly evolved to encompass how study participants are considered and treated in clinical research. Initially, people fearing death of AIDS sought early access to experimental medications that had not undergone rigorous testing in hopes of extending their lives. Thirty years on, scientists are asking a different set of ethical questions about clinical research, this time in the pursuit of either a sterilising cure or long-term remission for HIV. Instead of hastening access to experimental drugs for the sickest, researchers are now testing interventions for eradicating or controlling the virus in typically very healthy HIV-positive individuals who have the most to lose from such interventions if something goes wrong. While clinical researchers and ethicists debate the merits and limits of this type of research they should avoid discounting altruistic motivations as a powerful factor in a prospective study participant's decisions to assume risks. My conversations with four men who participated in HIV cure studies confirmed the capacity of these people to make carefully considered decisions about risks and the sometimes substantial influence/sway of non-clinical benefits that may come from participation in cure-oriented research. Studies must undergo ethical and clinical review before proceeding, and not all participants of such studies will be able to weigh or understand risks and benefits as those profiled here. But respecting the self-agency of people living with HIV should be a goal in the design and conduct of cure research.

For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies.

HIV cure research holds great potential to eradicate HIV, but the benefit to early trial participants is likely to be small. Moreover, participation carries unknown and possibly significant risks to research participants. This is the risk:benefit ratio challenge of HIV cure research. Although it may be consensual and rational for individuals to participate in HIV cure research that requires a degree of self-sacrifice, I argue that altruistic research participants can be exploited when the benefits to them are unfair. Transactions of this kind should not be prohibited, as that would be unacceptably paternalistic and thwart socially valuable research. Nevertheless, we should not simply accept these transactions but must work to reduce or eliminate exploitation by enhancing the benefits so that research participants are better off by their own lights. Offering payment in HIV cure research is the optimal way to enhance benefits to research participants and to make the risk:benefit ratio more favourable. I argue for a payment-as-benefit model against the standard view, assumed in ethics and policy, that offers of payment are not legitimate benefits.

First-in-human HIV-remission studies: reducing and justifying risk.

Interest and excitement surround the possibility of developing measures that produce sustained or permanent HIV remission in infected individuals. First-in-human (FIH) trials are one step in exploring this possibility. Initial human trials raise the usual ethical issues associated with human research, and a set of distinct issues. Because the potential direct benefits to FIH trial volunteers will be either small or non-existent, trial risks must be justified by the social value of the information the trials are expected to produce. To minimise and justify risks, researchers must have solid preclinical evidence that FIH trials will be safe and produce information relevant to human health improvements. Researchers must also adopt adequate study safeguards to protect FIH subjects. An ethically defensible study population must be selected as well.

The benefit/risk ratio challenge in clinical research, and the case of HIV cure: an introduction.

This piece introduces the JME symposium 'The benefit/risk ratio challenge in clinical research, and the case of HIV cure.'

Informed consent to HIV cure research.

Trials with highly unfavourable risk-benefit ratios for participants, like HIV cure trials, raise questions about the quality of the consent of research participants. Why, it may be asked, would a person with HIV who is doing well on antiretroviral therapy be willing to jeopardise his health by enrolling in such a trial? We distinguish three concerns: first, how information is communicated to potential participants; second, participants' motivations for enrolling in potentially high risk research with no prospect of direct benefit; and third, participants' understanding of the details of the trials in which they enrol. We argue that the communication concern is relevant to the validity of informed consent and the quality of decision making, that the motivation concern does not identify a genuine problem with either the validity of consent or the quality of decision making and that the understanding concern may not be relevant to the validity of consent but is relevant to the quality of decision making. In doing so, we derive guidance points for researchers recruiting and enrolling participants into their HIV cure trials, as well as the research ethics committees reviewing proposed studies.

Pharma Websites and "Professionals-Only" Information: The Implications for Patient Trust and Autonomy.

BACKGROUND: Access to information is critical to a patient's valid exercise of autonomy. One increasingly important source of medical information is the Internet. Individuals often turn to drug company ("pharma") websites to look for drug information. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether there is information on pharma websites that is embargoed: Is there information that is hidden from the patient unless she attests to being a health care provider? We discuss the implications of our findings for health care ethics. METHODS: We reviewed a convenience sample of 40 pharma websites for "professionals-only" areas and determined whether access to those areas was restricted, requiring attestation that the user is a health care professional in the United States. RESULTS: Of the 40 websites reviewed, 38 had information that was labeled for health care professionals-only. Of these, 24 required the user to certify their status as a health care provider before they were able to access this "hidden" information. CONCLUSIONS: Many pharma websites include information in a "professionals-only" section. Of these, the majority require attestation that the user is a health care professional before they can access the information. This leaves patients with two bad choices: (1) not accessing the information or (2) lying about being a health care professional. Both of these outcomes are unacceptable. In the first instance, the patient's access to information is limited, potentially impairing their health and their ability to make reasonable and well-informed decisions. In the second instance, they may be induced to lie in a medical setting. "Teaching" patients to lie may have adverse consequences for the provider-patient relationship.

From conflict and misunderstanding to respect.

Sociologists of the 19th and the 20th centuries were tackling the relation between science and religion. A few models of these relations were offered, by which the monopoly over the truth by any one of those is crashed. Therefore, there are a few models but each is with lots of limitations. None is sufficient to explain the relation between the science and religion, but each contributes to certain extent to better understanding of those relations. Almost every one of the interpretations was under the influence of the social (particularly ideological and political) conditions in which they were emerging. One of those could be named as "Riding on an old horse: there is no reconciliation between faith and reason". Is the enlightenment theory the source of a conflict between "faith" and "reason"? What is it that leads to the conflict of the science and religion? From rejection to acceptance - a view on Darwin's theory then and now. do creationist theories lead to exacerbation of relations between the science and religion? Postmodernism on the relation of science and religion. Stand views of religious communities - science and religion are not in conflict. Examples that confirm such opinion. Many priests and Islamic teachers have given their contributions to the development of science (technology, medicine, geography, architecture, urbanism, music etc.). Isn't it that the calendars, past (Egyptian, Chinese, Aztec etc.) and present (Hindu, Jewish, Islamic, Gregorian etc.) have come from the umbrella of religions. Are conflicts between science and religion the matter of the past? Disputes over use of drugs in rituals exist even today. Religion and science are autonomous fields - but where is the border between them? Technology and religions. How religions refer to technology. Examples of applications of technical achievements in religious activities. An ecological theory that is being developed within sociology of religion focuses on the relation of religions and religious communities toward nature. Contemporary dilemmas (ethic discussions within the field of biomedicine - euthanasia, abortion, organ donation, aesthetic surgery etc.).

Hot baths and cold minds: neuroscience, mind reading, and mind misreading.

The idea-the possibility-of reading the mind, from the outside or indeed even from the inside, has exercised humanity from the earliest times. If we could read other minds both prospectively, to discern intentions and plans, and retrospectively, to discover what had been "on" those minds when various events had occurred, the implications for morality and for law and social policy would be immense. Recent advances in neuroscience have offered some, probably remote, prospects of improved access to the mind, but a different branch of technology seems to offer the most promising and the most daunting prospect for both mind reading and mind misreading. You can't have the possibility of the one without the possibility of the other. This article tells some of this story.

Informed consent as an ethical requirement in clinical trials: an old, but still unresolved issue. An observational study to evaluate patient's informed consent comprehension.

We explored the comprehension of the informed consent in 77 cancer patients previously enrolled in randomised phase II or phase III clinical trials, between March and July 2011, at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milano. We asked participants to complete an ad hoc questionnaire and analysed their answers. Sixty-two per cent of the patients understood the purpose and nature of the trial they were participating in; 44% understood the study procedures and 40% correctly listed at least one of the major risks or complications related to their participation in the trial. We identified three factors associated with comprehension of the informed consent: age, education and type of tumour/investigator team. We suggest several possible improvements of how to obtain informed consent that will increase patient awareness, as well as the validity and effectiveness of the clinical trials.

Neuroethics in a "psy" world. The case of Argentina.

Given the cultural psychoanalytic tradition that shapes the thought of Argentineans and their current skepticism with regard to neurosciences when it comes to understanding human behavior, this article addresses the question of how a healthy neuroethics can develop in the country.

A NARRATIVE MODEL OF INFORMED CONSENT WITH YOUTH: DECISIONS AROUND ELECTIVE NON-MEDICAL CIRCUMCISION.

This paper examines narratives from young men seeking non-medical circumcision. Non-medical circumcision remains controversial, yet there are young men seeking elective circumcision. At our centre, young men 15 to 17 seeking elective circumcision were asked to write short pieces to reflect their understanding and reason(s) for wanting circumcision. Fourteen youth participated; four changed their minds about the procedure. Findings are described and evaluated within the medico-legal description of informed consent, and, from a narrative ethics perspective explicitly concerned with giving voice to patients. Persons are presumed capable of making their own health care decisions, yet, with youth, there may be a concern that an irrevocable decision may be coerced, or impulsive. Narrative reflections provide a means by which (i) misinformation/misunderstanding can be resolved (ii) coercion can be minimized and (iii) impulsivity mitigated. This paper describes our experience with narrative reflection and aims to facilitate informed decision-making for elective procedures among youth, and other potentially vulnerable populations.

Taking part in a pharmacogenetic clinical trial: assessment of trial participants understanding of information disclosed during the informed consent process.

BACKGROUND: This study is the first to examine the understandings that participants have of the consent process in a pharmacogenetic trial of anti-depressant medication. METHODS: This was a qualitative cross sectional study. There were 76 participants residing in London, Mannheim, Arhuus and Poznan. RESULTS: Only one quarter of participants (none in Poznan) could articulate the concept of pharmacogenetics. Heritability and testing medication were also given as the purpose of the trial. Most participants had not appreciated harms that could derive from the trial. Even when shown the consent sheet, participants were confused about DNA profiling. There was evidence that participants appreciated weekly contact with researchers. Most said they would participate in a trial again but would like choice over the intervention they were assigned to. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study showed a poor level of informed consent. Although this is not the first time this argument has been made, it is in the case of a pharmacogenetic trial. Further work should investigate the associations between extraneous factors such as information and social support on beneficial or untoward outcomes of antidepressant treatment.

Pharmaceutical information systems and possible implementations of informed consent -- developing an heuristic.

BACKGROUND: Denmark has implemented a comprehensive, nationwide pharmaceutical information system, and this system has been evaluated by the Danish Council of Ethics. The system can be seen as an exemplar of a comprehensive health information system for clinical use. ANALYSIS: The paper analyses 1) how informed consent can be implemented in the system and how different implementations create different impacts on autonomy and control of information, and 2) arguments directed towards justifying not seeking informed consent in this context. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis a heuristic is provided which enables a ranking and estimation of the impact on autonomy and control of information of different options for consent to entry of data into the system and use of data from the system.The danger of routinisation of consent is identified.The Danish pharmaceutical information system raises issues in relation to autonomy and control of information, issues that will also occur in relation to other similar comprehensive health information systems. Some of these issues are well understood and their impact can be judged using the heuristic which is provided. More research is, however needed in relation to routinisation of consent.

Improving understanding of clinical trial procedures among low literacy populations: an intervention within a microbicide trial in Malawi.

BACKGROUND: The intervention reported in this paper was a follow up to an empirical study conducted in Malawi with the aim of assessing trial participants' understanding of randomisation, double-blinding and placebo use. In the empirical study, the majority of respondents (61.1%; n=124) obtained low scores (lower than 75%) on understanding of all three concepts under study. Based on these findings, an intervention based on a narrative which included all three concepts and their personal implications was designed. The narrative used daily examples from the field of Agriculture because Malawi has an agro-based economy. METHODS: The intervention was tested using a sample of 36 women who had been identified as low scorers during the empirical study. The 36 low scorers were randomly assigned to control (n=18) and intervention arms (n=18). The control arm went through a session in which they were provided with standard informed consent information for the microbicide trial. The intervention arm went through a session in which they were provided with a narrative in ChiChewa, the local language, with the assistance of a power point presentation which included pictures as well as discussions on justification and personal implications of the concepts under study. RESULTS: The findings on the efficacy of the intervention suggest that the 3 scientific concepts and their personal implications can be understood by low literacy populations using simple language and everyday local examples. The findings also suggest that the intervention positively impacted on understanding of trial procedures under study, as 13 of the 18 women in the intervention arm, obtained high scores (above 75%) during the post intervention assessment and none of the 18 in the control arm obtained a high score. Using Fischer's exact test, it was confirmed that the effect of the intervention on understanding of the three procedures was statistically significant (p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Potential trial participants can be assisted to understand key clinical trial procedures, their justification and personal implications by using innovative tailored local narratives.

The fair transaction model of informed consent: an alternative to autonomous authorization.

The doctrine of informed consent in bioethics has relied on the view that consent is valid when it represents a patient or research subject's autonomous authorization. In this article we challenge this reigning conception of the validity of informed consent in clinical research, focusing in particular on the problem of the therapeutic misconception. We argue that the autonomous authorization model of informed consent suffers from four defects: (1) it fails to do justice to the relevance of risk-benefit considerations in shaping the criteria for the validity of consent, (2) it compromises the interests of subjects by preventing them from consenting to research participation with less than substantial understanding when doing so would likely be consistent with their preferences and beneficial to them or at least be unlikely to cause them harm, (3) it jeopardizes the interests of investigators by denying them fair notice regarding when the consent of research subjects can be considered valid and thus make it permissible for them to be enrolled in research, and (4) it threatens the reasonable limits on the responsibility of investigators to assure the adequacy of subjects' understanding of what research participation involves. In place of the autonomous authorization model, we present and defend a fair transaction model of informed consent, which better reflects the values served by consent.

Public understanding of neural prosthetics in Germany: ethical, social, and cultural challenges.

Since the development of the first neural prosthesis, that is, the cochlear implant in 1957, neural prosthetics have been one of the highly promising, yet most challenging areas of medicine, while having become a clinically accepted form of invasiveness into the human body. Neural prosthetic devices, of which at least one part is inserted into the body, interact directly with the nervous system to restore or replace lost or damaged sensory, motor, or cognitive functions. This field is not homogenous and encompasses a variety of technologies, which are in various stages of development. Some devices are well established in clinical practice and have become routine, such as cochlear implants. By comparison, other technologies are in experimental phases and still need to be further developed to achieve the desired results.

Comparison of group counseling with individual counseling in the comprehension of informed consent: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies on different methods to supplement the traditional informed consent process have generated conflicting results. This study was designed to evaluate whether participants who received group counseling prior to administration of informed consent understood the key components of the study and the consent better than those who received individual counseling, based on the hypothesis that group counseling would foster discussion among potential participants and enhance their understanding of the informed consent. METHODS: Parents of children participating in a trial of nutritional supplementation were randomized to receive either group counseling or individual counseling prior to administration of the informed consent. To assess the participant's comprehension, a structured questionnaire was administered approximately 48-72 hours afterwards by interviewers who were blinded to the allocation group of the respondents. RESULTS: A total of 128 parents were recruited and follow up was established with 118 (90.2%) for the study. All respondents were aware of their child's participation in a research study and the details of sample collection. However, their understanding of study purpose, randomization and withdrawal was poor. There was no difference in comprehension of key elements of the informed consent between the intervention and control arm. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the group counseling might not influence the overall comprehension of the informed consent process. Further research is required to devise better ways of improving participants' understanding of randomization in clinical trials.

Plain Language Summaries of Clinical Trial Results: A Preliminary Study to Assess Availability of Easy-to-Understand Summaries and Approaches to Improving Public Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Easy-to-understand, stand-alone factual summaries of clinical trial results have the potential to improve public understanding of and engagement with pharmaceutical research. The European Clinical Trial Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 is a major regulatory initiative that will result in a large number of such plain language summaries (PLSs) posted in the public domain. Today, however, little is known about the extent to which PLSs are written and are available to the general public. OBJECTIVES: This preliminary study assessed (i) 20 top pharmaceutical companies' positions on improving transparency and commitment to disclosing trial result summaries in an easy-to-understand format and (ii) the availability of such summaries in the public domain and the ease of locating them via general web searches. METHODS: The availability of PLSs in the public domain was estimated based on the number of EudraCT technical result summaries in four disease areas: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, meningitis, and influenza. The likelihood of PLSs being easy to find through internet search engine queries by members of the public was assessed using Google. RESULTS: All 20 sponsors had committed to improve clinical trial transparency, 17 committed to sharing PLSs with trial participants, and 14 had at least one PLS available in the public domain. A total of 99 clinical studies in these four disease areas had technical summaries posted on EudraCT between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2020. Of these 99, 14 studies had PLSs in the public domain. A total of 12 of 14 PLSs were directly captured by search engine. However, the sponsor trial identifier or EudraCT number had to be included in the search term to locate them. Generic search terms resulted in large volumes of non-relevant results. CONCLUSION: Despite the progressive movement towards clinical trial transparency, easily accessible PLSs on clinical trials are currently scarce. The provision of a European mandate and framework for non-technical result summaries by Regulation (EU) 536/2014 will be a major step to bring about positive change.

More patient and public involvement in healthcare research will help to speed the process of making new medicines. This is known by both the regulators and the healthcare industry. The healthcare industry wants to make more information on human research studies available to patients and the public. One way to help achieve this is to write simple summaries of clinical study results. Here, we use the term plain language summary (PLS) to describe them. The PLS allows people to understand human research studies more clearly. A new law will soon make it necessary to write a PLS for every clinical study done in Europe. But, today, is the PLS being used to inform the public about clinical research studies? And what is its potential? We found only  a few researchers have already begun to write PLSs. PLSs on most studies are not available to the public. Even those PLSs on public websites are very hard to find through a Google search. To better understand the potential of PLSs we are doing more research. This research will look at what the public wants to know about these studies and how they will retrieve this information.