Rethinking the clinical research protocol: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations for reducing noncompliance.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 103.4 million cases and 1.1 million deaths have occurred nationally as of November 2023. Despite the benefit of mitigating measures, the pandemic's effect on participant safety is rarely documented. METHODS: This study assessed noncompliance occurring from July 2019 to August 2021 that were stratified by the date of noncompliance (before or after restrictions). Events were described by size, site, noncompliance type, primary category, subcategory, and cause. In addition, noncompliance associated with COVID-19 was analyzed to determine characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 323 noncompliance events occurred across 21,146 participants at risk in 35 protocols. The overall rate of noncompliance increased from 0.008 events per participant to 0.022 events per participant after the COVID-19 restrictions (p < 0.001). For onsite protocols, the median within protocol change in rates was 0.001 (interquartile range = 0.141) after the onset of COVID-19 restrictions (p = 0.54). For large-sized protocols (n ≥ 100), the median within protocol change in rates was also 0.001 (interquartile range = 0.017) after COVID-19 restrictions (p = 0.15). For events related to COVID-19 restrictions, 160/162 (99%) were minor deviations, 161/162 (99%) were procedural noncompliance, and 124/162 (77%) were an incomplete study visit. CONCLUSION: These noncompliance events have implications for clinical trial methodology because nonadherence to trial design can lead to participant safety concerns and loss of trial data validity. Protocols should be written to better facilitate the capture of all safety and efficacy data. This recommendation should be considered when changes occur to the protocol environment that are outside of the study team's control.

Design and implementation of community consultation for research conducted under exception from informed consent regulations for the PreVent and the PreVent 2 trials: Changes over time and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency clinical research has played an important role in improving outcomes for acutely ill patients. This is due in part to regulatory measures that allow Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires sponsor-investigators to engage in community consultation and public disclosure activities prior to initiating an Exception From Informed Consent trial. Various approaches to community consultation and public disclosure have been described and adapted to local contexts and Institutional Review Board (IRB) interpretations. The COVID-19 pandemic has precluded the ability to engage local communities through direct, in-person public venues, requiring research teams to find alternative ways to inform communities about emergency research. METHODS: The PreVent and PreVent 2 studies were two Exception From Informed Consent trials of emergency endotracheal intubation, conducted in one geographic location for the PreVent Study and in two geographic locations for the PreVent 2 Study. During the period of the two studies, there was a substantial shift in the methodological approach spanning across the periods before and after the pandemic from telephone, to in-person, to virtual settings. RESULTS: During the 10 years of implementation of Exception From Informed Consent activities for the two PreVent trials, there was overall favorable public support for the concept of Exception From Informed Consent trials and for the importance of emergency clinical research. Community concerns were few and also did not differ much by method of contact. Attendance was higher with the implementation of virtual technology to reach members of the community, and overall feedback was more positive compared with telephone contacts or in-person events. However, the proportion of survey responses received after completion of the remote, live event was substantially lower, with a greater proportion of respondents having higher education levels. This suggests less active engagement after completion of the synchronous activity and potentially higher selection bias among respondents. Importantly, we found that engagement with local community leaders was a key component to develop appropriate plans to connect with the public. CONCLUSION: The PreVent experience illustrated operational advantages and disadvantages to community consultation conducted primarily by telephone, in-person events, or online activities. Approaches to enhance community acceptance included partnering with community leaders to optimize the communication strategies and trust building with the involvement of Institutional Review Board representatives during community meetings. Researchers might need to pivot from in-person planning to virtual techniques while maintaining the ability to engage with the public with two-way communication approaches. Due to less active engagement, and potential for selection bias in the responders, further research is needed to address the costs and benefits of virtual community consultation and public disclosure activities compared to in-person events.

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry.

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Precision Medicine for Whom? Public Health Outputs from "Genomics England" and "All of Us" to Make Up for Upstream and Downstream Exclusion.

This paper problematizes the precision medicine approach embraced by the All of Us Research Program (US) and by Genomics England (UK) in terms of benefits distribution, by arguing that current "diversity and inclusion" efforts do not prevent exclusiveness, unless the framing and scope of the projects are revisited in public health terms. Grounded on document analysis and fieldwork interviews, this paper analyzes efforts to address potential patterns of exclusion upstream (from participating in precision medicine research) and downstream (from benefitting from precision medicine outputs). It argues that efforts for inclusion upstream are not corresponded downstream, and this unbalance jeopardizes the equitable capacities of the projects. It concludes that enhanced focus on socio-environmental determinants of health and aligned public health interventions as precision medicine outputs would be to the benefit of all and especially of those who are most at risk of (upstream as well as downstream) exclusion.

Think Pragmatically: Investigators' Obligations to Patient-Subjects When Research is Embedded in Care.

Growing interest in embedded research approaches-where research is incorporated into clinical care-has spurred numerous studies to generate knowledge relevant to the real-world needs of patients and other stakeholders. However, it also has presented ethical challenges. An emerging challenge is how to understand the nature and extent of investigators' obligations to patient-subjects. Prior scholarship on investigator duties has generally been grounded upon the premise that research and clinical care are distinct activities, bearing distinct duties. Yet this premise-and its corresponding implications-are challenged when research and clinical care are deliberately integrated. After presenting three case studies from recent pragmatic clinical trials, we identify six differences between explanatory trials and embedded research that limit the application of existing scholarship for ascertaining investigator duties. We suggest that these limitations indicate a need to account for the implications of usual care and to move beyond a narrow focus on the investigator-subject dyad, one that better reflects the team- and institution-based nature of contemporary health systems.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance.

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Distinguishing appropriate from inappropriate conditions on research participation.

Individuals do not have a right to participate in clinical trials. But, they do have a right against being denied participation for inappropriate reasons. Despite the widespread endorsement of these two claims, there has been little discussion regarding which conditions for participation in clinical trials are appropriate and which are inappropriate. The present manuscript attempts to address this gap in the literature. We first describe and then argue against the claim that conditions on enrollment or continued participation are appropriate only when they are needed to answer the scientific question(s) posed by the trial. We then offer an alternative view according to which the appropriateness of conditions depends on whether they help to satisfy the ethical requirements of clinical research. Because these requirements include social value, the present view implies that promoting social value is an acceptable reason to impose conditions on research participation. With this in mind, we explain why it is not coercive to require potential participants to accept conditions on enrollment that promote a trial's social value, even when the participants find those conditions unwelcome. We conclude by evaluating the present proposal's implications for the common practice of requiring participants to agree to the possible use of their leftover biospecimens in a broad range of future research. We argue, contra current regulatory policy, that this practice can be acceptable even when the present trial offers participants the prospect of clinical benefit and the samples are being reserved for future research that is unrelated to the present trial.

A Research Ethics Framework for the Clinical Translation of Healthcare Machine Learning.

The application of artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) technologies in healthcare have immense potential to improve the care of patients. While there are some emerging practices surrounding responsible ML as well as regulatory frameworks, the traditional role of research ethics oversight has been relatively unexplored regarding its relevance for clinical ML. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive research ethics framework that can apply to the systematic inquiry of ML research across its development cycle. The pathway consists of three stages: (1) exploratory, hypothesis-generating data access; (2) silent period evaluation; (3) prospective clinical evaluation. We connect each stage to its literature and ethical justification and suggest adaptations to traditional paradigms to suit ML while maintaining ethical rigor and the protection of individuals. This pathway can accommodate a multitude of research designs from observational to controlled trials, and the stages can apply individually to a variety of ML applications.

Determinants of kidney transplant candidates' decision to accept organ donor intervention transplants and participate in post-transplant research: A conjoint analysis.

Deceased organ donor intervention research aims to increase organ quality and quantity for transplantation. We assessed the proportion of kidney transplant candidates who would accept "intervention organs," participate in organ intervention research, and factors influencing acceptance. Kidney transplant candidates were presented 12 hypothetical scenarios, which varied three attributes, donor age, predicted waiting time to receive another organ offer, and research risk to the organ. Candidates were also randomly assigned to one of two conditions varying recipient risk. For each scenario, candidates agreed to accept the intervention organ or remain waitlisted. We fit a multivariable logit model to determine the association between scenario attributes and the acceptance decision. Of 249 participants, most (96%) accepted intervention organs under some or all conditions. Factors independently associated with candidates' greater likelihood of accepting an intervention organ included: low risk to the kidney from the intervention (OR 20.53 [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 13.91-30.29]); younger donor age (OR 3.72 [95% CI, 2.83-4.89]), longer time until the next organ offer (OR 3.48 [95% CI, 2.65-4.57]), and greater trust in their transplant physician (OR 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00-1.06]). Candidates with a lower likelihood of acceptance had been waitlisted longer (OR 0.97 per month [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]) and were Black (OR 0.21 [95% CI, 0.08-0.55]). Most candidates would accept an intervention organ, which should encourage transplant leaders to conduct deceased donor organ intervention trials.

The ethics of quality improvement studies: do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Clinical research involving human subjects and quality improvement (QI) projects share a common goal of seeking to improve human health, whether by directly changing the standard of care (research) or by improving the process(es) by which that care is delivered (QI). Whether a QI project requires informed consent (written or oral) is a function of the risk-benefit analysis of the study; such a determination should not be at the sole discretion of the investigators, but should come from an appropriately constituted review board with expertise in the ethics of biomedical research.

Human Brain Surrogates Research: The Onrushing Ethical Dilemma.

Human brain research is moving into a dilemma. The best way to understand how the human brain works is to study living human brains in living human beings, but ethical and legal standards make it difficult to do powerful research with actual human beings. So neuroscientists have developed four types of surrogates for living human brains in human bodies: genetically edited non-human animals, human/non-human brain chimeras, human neural organoids, and living ex vivo human brain tissues. These new and rapidly improving models offer the hope of understanding human brain function better. If we make our models "too good," they may themselves deserve some of the kinds of ethical and legal respect that have limited brain research in human beings. This article is an initial effort to outline that dilemma.

Obligations of the "Gift": Reciprocity and Responsibility in Precision Medicine.

Precision medicine relies on data and biospecimens from participants who willingly offer their personal information on the promise that this act will ultimately result in knowledge that will improve human health. Drawing on anthropological framings of the "gift," this paper contextualizes participation in precision medicine as inextricable from social relationships and their ongoing ethical obligations. Going beyond altruism, reframing biospecimen and data collection in terms of socially regulated gift-giving recovers questions of responsibility and care. As opposed to conceiving participation in terms of donations that elide clinical labor critical to precision medicine, the gift metaphor underscores ethical commitments to reciprocity and responsibility. This demands confronting inequities in precision medicine, such as systemic bias and lack of affordability and access. A focus on justice in precision medicine that recognizes the sociality of the gift is a critical frontier for bioethics.

Self-Defeating Codes of Medical Ethics and How to Fix Them: Failures in COVID-19 Response and Beyond.

Statements of the core ethical and professional responsibilities of medical professionals are incomplete in ways that threaten fundamental goals of medicine. First, in the absence of explicit guidance for responding to cases in which there is significant uncertainty or disagreement about the relative therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic merits of available interventions they perpetuate self-defeating practices. Second, without addressing the role of advertising in shaping patient and community preferences they risk creating moral loopholes that bypass and undermine professional duties of fidelity, honesty and transparency. In both cases, these flaws are exacerbated by an individualism that ignores the critical role of health systems in managing and reducing uncertainty and conflict over best practices, and in communicating with and shaping the expectations of the public. These points are illustrated with examples from the response to COVID-19 and suggestions for reform are proposed.

Toward a Framework for Assessing Privacy Risks in Multi-Omic Research and Databases.

While the accumulation and increased circulation of genomic data have captured much attention over the past decade, privacy risks raised by the diversification and integration of omics have been largely overlooked. In this paper, we propose the outline of a framework for assessing privacy risks in multi-omic research and databases. Following a comparison of privacy risks associated with genomic and epigenomic data, we dissect ten privacy risk-impacting omic data properties that affect either the risk of re-identification of research participants, or the sensitivity of the information potentially conveyed by biological data. We then propose a three-step approach for the assessment of privacy risks in the multi-omic era. Thus, we lay grounds for a data property-based, 'pan-omic' approach that moves away from genetic exceptionalism. We conclude by inviting our peers to refine these theoretical foundations, put them to the test in their respective fields, and translate our approach into practical guidance.

Misrepresenting "Usual Care" in Research: An Ethical and Scientific Error.

Comparative effectiveness studies, referred to here as "usual-care" trials, seek to compare current medical practices for the same medical condition. Such studies are presumed to be safe and involve only minimal risks. However, that presumption may be flawed if the trial design contains "unusual" care, resulting in potential risks to subjects and inaccurately informed consent. Three case studies described here did not rely on clinical evidence to ascertain contemporaneous practice. As a result, the investigators drew inaccurate conclusions, misinformed research participants, and subjects' safety was compromised. Before approving usual-care protocols, IRBs and scientific review committees should evaluate the quality and completeness of information documenting usual-care practices. Guidance from governmental oversight agencies regarding evidence-based documentation of current clinical practice could prevent similar occurrences in future usual-care trials. Accurate information is necessary to ensure that trials comply with government regulations that require minimizing research risks to subjects and accurate informed consent documents.

Reassessing the Ethics of Molecular HIV Surveillance in the Era of Cluster Detection and Response: Toward HIV Data Justice.

In the United States, clinical HIV data reported to surveillance systems operated by jurisdictional departments of public health are re-used for epidemiology and prevention. In 2018, all jurisdictions began using HIV genetic sequence data from clinical drug resistance tests to identify people living with HIV in "clusters" of others with genetically similar strains. This is called "molecular HIV surveillance" (MHS). In 2019, "cluster detection and response" (CDR) programs that re-use MHS data became the "fourth pillar" of the national HIV strategy. Public health re-uses of HIV data are done without consent and are a source of concern among stakeholders. This article presents three cases that illuminate bioethical challenges associated with re-uses of clinical HIV data for public health. We focus on evidence-base, risk-benefit ratio, determining directionality of HIV transmission, consent, and ethical re-use. The conclusion offers strategies for "HIV data justice." The essay contributes to a "bioethics of the oppressed."

Using, risking, and consent: Why risking harm to bystanders is morally different from risking harm to research subjects.

Subjects in studies on humans are used as a means of conducting the research and achieving whatever good would justify putting them at risk. Accordingly, consent must normally be obtained before subjects are exposed to any substantial risks to their welfare. Bystanders are also often put at risk, but they are not used as a means. Accordingly-or so I argue-consent is more often unnecessary before bystanders are exposed to similar substantial risks to their welfare.

Bystanders, risks, and consent.

This paper considers the moral status of bystanders affected by medical research trials. Recent proposals advocate a very low threshold of permissible risk imposition upon bystanders that is insensitive to the prospective benefits of the trial, in part because we typically lack bystanders' consent. I argue that the correct threshold of permissible risk will be sensitive to the prospective gains of the trial. I further argue that one does not always need a person's consent to expose her to significant risks of even serious harm for the sake of others. That we typically need the consent of participants is explained by the fact that trials risk harmfully using participants, which is very hard to justify without consent. Bystanders, in contrast, are harmed as a side-effect, which is easier to justify. I then consider whether the degree of risk that a trial may impose on a bystander is sensitive to whether she is a prospective beneficiary of that trial.

Compensation and reparations for victims and bystanders of the U.S. Public Health Service research studies in Tuskegee and Guatemala: Who do we owe what?

Using the infamous research studies in Tuskegee and Guatemala, the article examines the difference between victims and bystanders. The victims can include families, sexual partners, and children not just the participants. There are also the bystanders in the populations who are affected, even vaguely, decades after the initial studies took place. Differing reparations for victims and bystanders through lawsuits and historical acknowledgments has to be part of broader discussions of historical justice, and the weighing of the impact of racism and imperial research endeavors.

The importance of how research participants think they are perceived: results from an electronic monitoring study of antiretroviral therapy in Uganda.

Novel monitoring technologies in HIV research, such as electronic adherence monitors (EAMs), have changed the nature of researcher-participant interactions. Yet little is known about how EAMs and the resulting interaction between researchers and participants affect research participation and the data gathered. We interviewed participants and research assistants (RAs) in an observational cohort study involving EAMs for HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Uganda. We qualitatively explored interviewees' views about ethical issues surrounding EAMs and assessed data with conventional and directed content analysis. Participants valued their relationships with RAs and were preoccupied with RAs' perceptions of them. Participants were pleased when the EAM revealed regular adherence, and annoyed when it revealed non-adherence that contradicted self-reported pill-taking behavior. For many, the desire to maintain a good impression incentivized adherence. But some sought to creatively conceal non-adherence, or refused to use the EAM to avoid revealing non-adherence to RAs. These findings show that participants' perceptions of the study staff's perceptions of them affected the experience of being monitored, study participation, and ultimately the data gathered in the study. Investigators in monitoring-based research should be aware that social interactions between participants and study staff could affect both the practical and ethical conduct of that research.