Participants' written informed consent in low-risk pragmatic clinical trials with medicines.

Introduction: An important gap within modern medicine is the lack of enough comparative effectiveness research of marketed medicines. Low-risk pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) are those conducted resembling usual clinical practice that poses no or minimal incremental risk compared with normal clinical practice.Areas covered: This review addresses one important hurdle in the conduct of low-risk pRCTs: the need to seek participants' written informed consent.Expert opinion: The CIOMS ethical guidelines consider that any research that (a) would not be feasible or practicable to carry out without the waiver or modification, (b) has important social value, and (c) poses no more than minimal risks to participants, and that is approved by the relevant research ethics committee, could be conducted without participants' consent. It is clear that these provisions are applicable to some low-risk RCTs. Recently a research on the EU-CTR registry showed that only 2% of all ongoing phase 4 RCTs could have fulfilled the CIOMS provisions following the investigators' assessment. The EU clinical trial regulation - and that of other jurisdictions - should be debated on the suitableness of the conduct with an alteration or waiver of participants' consent of those low-risk pRCTs that fulfill the three CIOMS provisions.

Policies for Use of Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA): A Comparative Study of Six HTA Agencies.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials provide robust data on the efficacy of interventions rather than on effectiveness. Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies worldwide are thus exploring whether real-world data (RWD) may provide alternative sources of data on effectiveness of interventions. Presently, an overview of HTA agencies' policies for RWD use in relative effectiveness assessments (REA) is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To review policies of six European HTA agencies on RWD use in REA of drugs. A literature review and stakeholder interviews were conducted to collect information on RWD policies for six agencies: the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (Sweden), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (Germany), the High Authority for Health (France), the Italian Medicines Agency (Italy), and the National Healthcare Institute (The Netherlands). The following contexts for RWD use in REA of drugs were reviewed: initial reimbursement discussions, pharmacoeconomic analyses, and conditional reimbursement schemes. We identified 13 policy documents and 9 academic publications, and conducted 6 interviews. RESULTS: Policies for RWD use in REA of drugs notably differed across contexts. Moreover, policies differed between HTA agencies. Such variations might discourage the use of RWD for HTA. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate the use of RWD for HTA across Europe, more alignment of policies seems necessary. Recent articles and project proposals of the European network of HTA may provide a starting point to achieve this.

Cuando la información para los participantes de un ensayo de efectividad comparativa acaba en los tribunales: ¿se abre la caja de Pandora? / When the information provided to participants of a comparative effectiveness trial ends up in the court: The opening of Pandora's box?

No disponible

Ethics and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities in Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Research.

The Affordable Care Act includes provisions for the conduct of large-scale, patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. Such efforts aim toward the laudable moral goal of having evidence to improve health care decision making. Nevertheless, these pragmatic clinical research efforts that typically pose minimal incremental risk and are enmeshed in routine care settings perhaps surprisingly encounter an array of ethics and regulatory challenges and opportunities for academic health centers. An emphasis on patient-centeredness forces an examination of the appropriateness of traditional methods used to protect the rights, interests, and welfare of participants. At the same time, meaningful collaboration with patients throughout the research process also necessitates ensuring that novel approaches to research (including recruitment and consent) entail necessary protections regarding such issues as privacy. As the scientific and logistical aspects of this research are being developed, substantial attention is being focused on the accompanying ethics and regulatory issues that have emerged, which should help to facilitate ethically appropriate research in a variety of contexts.

When Does FDAMA Section 114 Apply? Ten Case Studies.

BACKGROUND: Section 114 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 regulates the promotion of health economic information by pharmaceutical companies to US health plans. Greater clarity is important given demands by payers and other stakeholders for evidence of value. OBJECTIVES: To develop hypothetical case studies of health economic promotions to examine legal and policy implications. METHODS: We constructed for pedagogical purposes 10 categories of potential health economic promotions. We generated hypothetical case studies for each category, including questions about whether each might be allowable under Section 114. The case studies were developed around the following categories: 1) costing out on-label clinical end points; 2) promotion of a costing exercise to physicians working in an accountable care organization setting; 3) burden-of-illness claims; 4) economic analysis of a formulary restriction policy; 5) extrapolations to doses, populations, or settings not covered in trials; 6) adherence claims; 7) "utilization of care" as a secondary end point in randomized clinical trials; 8) costing out a competitor drug's adverse event; 9) economic analysis of comparative effectiveness claims using an indirect treatment comparison; and 10) extrapolating from surrogate to long-term outcomes in an economic model. DISCUSSION: Most cases seem to fall into a gray zone given haziness around what constitutes "competent and reliable evidence" and "directly relate[d]" to an approved indication. In practice, it is difficult to know what the section allows given the imprecision of the statute and lack of guidance about its scope. CONCLUSION: Ideally, future guidance will provide clarity and flexibility.

FDAMA Section 114: Why the Renewed Interest?

The FDA regulates the use of information by biopharmaceutical companies in their promotional activities. Section 114 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) was specifically designed to allow companies to more readily disseminate health care economic information (HCEI) to those who need it for formulary decision making. However, very little HCEI has been distributed promotionally under this provision over the past 17 years. There are recent discussions by stakeholders regarding the need for updates, revisions, or guidance regarding Section 114.In light of recent renewed interest in Section 114 of the FDAMA, the purpose of this commentary is to equip managed care decision makers with the information they need to understand and respond to industry communications that are governed by Section 114. This commentary reviews and synthesizes the regulatory history and language of the statute and changes to the promotion regulation generated by Section 114. It explores the reasons for the section's limited use to date, for recent renewed interest, and why changes by various stakeholders are suggested at this time. Also discussed is what managed care pharmacists need to know about Section 114, and suggestions are included regarding the active role pharmacists can play in this change process. Renewed interest in FDAMA Section 114 appears to stem largely from the increasingly visible and growing interest in comparative effectiveness research, the emergence of "big data," the expanding range of data sources available for deriving HCEI, and recent court decisions that might indicate a change in the regulatory environment. Various stakeholders are proposing recommendations regarding changes to FDAMA Section 114. Managed care pharmacists should be aware that companies are restricted when communicating HCEI promotional messages; this may mean seeing the use of FDAMA Section 114 as the "competent and reliable" effectiveness standard in promotion. If the managed care pharmacy community communicates clearly about what information it needs and the format in which it wants to receive that information, companies, policymakers, and regulatory bodies can work collaboratively with managed care pharmacy to create a regulatory environment that supports transparent communication of desired information.

Comparative effectiveness research and big data: balancing potential with legal and ethical considerations.

Big data holds big potential for comparative effectiveness research. The ability to quickly synthesize and use vast amounts of health data to compare medical interventions across settings of care, patient populations, payers and time will greatly inform efforts to improve quality, reduce costs and deliver more patient-centered care. However, the use of big data raises significant legal and ethical issues that may present barriers or limitations to the full potential of big data. This paper addresses the scope of some of these legal and ethical issues and how they may be managed effectively to fully realize the potential of big data.