Registries or non-pharmacological observational studies? An operational attempt to draw the line and to provide some suggestions for the ethical evaluation of rare disease registries.

Originally established to evaluate the ethical aspects of clinical trials, Ethics Committees (ECs) are now requested to review different types of projects, including, among others, observational studies and disease registries. In Italy, clinical trials on medicinal products for human use and on medical devices are regulated by EU Regulation 536/2014, EU Regulation 2017/745, and 2017/746 while pharmacological observational studies are regulated by the Italian Medicines Agency guidelines of 2008 and by Ministerial Decree of November 30th, 2021. The other types of studies are not strictly regulated, causing discrepancies in their definition and assessment by the ECs, and slowdowns in the start of projects. The present contribution aims to propose definitions and distinctions between non-pharmacological observational studies and disease registries, which constitute different entities but are often assimilated by ECs, and to formulate suggestions for the evaluation of rare disease registries, which are an expanding research area of interest.

Italian law n. 219/2017 on consent and advance directives: survey among Ethics Committees on their involvement and possible role.

BACKGROUND: On December 2017 the Italian Parliament approved law n. 219/2017 "Provisions for informed consent and advance directives" regarding challenging legal and bioethical issues related to healthcare decisions and end-of-life choices. The law does not contain an explicit reference to Ethics Committees (ECs), but they could still play a role in implementing the law. METHODS: A questionnaire-based survey was performed among the ECs of the Italian Institute for Research and Care belonging to the Network of neuroscience and neurorehabilitation, with the aim of (1) knowing whether the ECs participated and, if so, how in the process of implementation of law n. 219/2017 in the referring institutes; (2) investigating the point of view of the ECs regarding their possible involvement in the process; (3) exploring the contribution ECs can provide to give effective implementation to the law principles and provisions. RESULTS: Seventeen ECs out of thirty took part in the survey; the characteristics of the responding and non-responding committees are similar, so the responding ECs can be regarded as representative of all ECs in the Network. Nine ECs did not discuss the law in anyway: the main reason for this is that the referring institutions (6) and the health care professionals (3) did not ask for an EC intervention. Nevertheless, the large majority of the ECs believe that their involvement in the implementation of the law as a whole is appropriate (8) or absolutely appropriate (6), while 3 of them are neutral. No EC believes that the involvement is inappropriate. The aspect of the law on which the 14 ECs converge in considering the EC involvement appropriate/absolutely appropriate is the one related to the health facilities obligation to guarantee the full and proper implementation of the principles of the law. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey confirms that ECs believe they can play a role in the implementation of law n. 219/2017, although this does not entirely correspond to what the committees have actually done in reality. This role could be better exercised by ECs specifically established for clinical practice, which would have a composition, functioning and a mandate better suited to the purpose. This supports the call for a national regulation of ECs for clinical practice.

Liver transplantation from active COVID-19 donors: Is it ethically justifiable?

The debate on the opportunity to use organs from donors testing positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in recipients with naïve resolved or active COVID-19 is ongoing. We aim to present the ethical analyses underlying the decision to perform liver transplantation (LT) in selected patients with resolved or active COVID-19 in Italy. We used Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade's Four-Boxes casuistic method, addressing the four topics considered as constitutive of the essential structure of single clinical cases for their ethical analysis (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, and contextual features) to enable decision-making on a case-by-case basis. Based on these topics, we elucidate the meaning and balance among the principles of biomedical ethics. Clinical ethics judgment based on the relation between the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 along with its potentially negative effects and the expected benefits of transplant lead to consider LT as clinically appropriate. Shared decision-making allows the integration of clinical options with the patient's subjective preferences and considerations, enabling a valid informed consent specifically tailored to the patients' individual circumstances. The inclusion of carefully selected SARS-CoV-2 positive donors represents an opportunity to offer lifesaving LT to patients who might otherwise have limited opportunities to receive one. COVID-19 positive donor livers are fairly allocated among equals, and respect for fundamental rights of the individual and the broader community in a context of healthcare rationing is guaranteed.The ethical analysis of the decision to perform LT in selected patients shows that the decision is ethically justifiable.

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs): A few ethical considerations.

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are studies in which the need for patients to physically access hospital-based trial sites is reduced or eliminated. The CoViD-19 pandemic has caused a significant increase in DCT: a survey shows that 76% of pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and Contract Research Organizations adopted decentralized techniques during the early phase of the pandemic. The implementation of DCTs relies on the use of digital tools such as e-consent, apps, wearable devices, Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePRO), telemedicine, as well as on moving trial activities to the patient's home (e.g., drug delivery) or to local healthcare settings (i.e., community-based diagnosis and care facilities). DCTs adapt to patients' routines, allow patients to participate regardless of where they live by removing logistical barriers, offer better access to the study and the investigational product, and permit the inclusion of more diverse and more representative populations. The feasibility and quality of DCTs depends on several requirements including dedicated infrastructures and staff, an adequate regulatory framework, and partnerships between research sites, patients and sponsors. The evaluation of Ethics Committees (ECs) is crucial to the process of innovating and digitalizing clinical trials: adequate assessment tools and a suitable regulatory framework are needed for evaluation by ECs. DCTs also raise issues, many of which are of considerable ethical significance. These include the implications for the relationship between patients and healthcare staff, for the social dimension of the patient, for data integrity (at the source, during transmission, in the analysis phase), for personal data protection, and for the possible risks to health and safety. Despite their considerable growth, DCTs have only received little attention from bioethicists. This paper offers a review on some ethical implications and requirements of DCTs in order to encourage further ethical reflection on this rapidly emerging field.

The 3-T Model of Informed Consent for Nonstandard Risk Donors: A Proposal for Transplant Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: The risk of disease transmission from nonstandard risk donors (NSRDs) is low, and outcomes are similar or better relative to transplants performed with standard criteria donors. However, NSRDs have posed new ethical challenges to the informed consent (IC) process. Based on the shared decision-making model, coinciding with the 3 main timings of the IC process ([1] pretransplant assessments and waiting list registration, [2] time on the waiting list, and [3] time of the organ offer), we put forward a model (3-T Model) to summarize the knowledge on IC for NSRDs and to deliver conceptual and practical support to transplant providers on this emergent issue. METHODS: We searched PubMed and analyzed data from our area to provide evidence and ethical arguments to promote standardization of the timing of patient information, degree of patient participation, and disclosure of donor risk factors throughout the 3 stages of the time continuum leading to the potential acceptance of NSRDs. RESULTS: Each of the 3 timings carries special ethical significance and entails well-defined duties for transplant providers relative to patient involvement and information of the benefits and risks associated with NSRDs. Based on our framework, experience, and interpretation of the literature, we put forward a list of recommendations to combine standardization (ie, timing, content, and degree of patient participation) and individualization of IC. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-T Model may enable the prevention of physicians' arbitrariness and the promotion of patient-centered care. Future studies will assess the effectiveness of the 3-T Model in transplant clinical practice.

Vulnerability and ethical issues faced by general practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: some reflections and lessons learned.

Vulnerability during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an emotional state that affects all of us globally. The Italian experience shows that our general practitioners (GPs) seem to have a higher rate of death due to COVID-19 infection than other physicians.

Festina lente.

The provisions adopted in Italy for clinical trials on medicinal products and medical devices for the epidemiological emergency caused by COVID-19 had an impact also on the functioning of Ethics Committees (ECs). All COVID-19 clinical trials are evaluated preliminarily by the Technical Scientific Committee of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). They are then evaluated by the Clinical Trial Office of the Competent Authority (AIFA) and by the EC of the Lazzaro Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases. On the basis of this experience, several parties have recommended the adoption of a new structure that envisages the involvement of a single EC for the activation of new studies, similar to the system put in place for studies on COVID-19. Rather than a single EC with jurisdiction over the entire country, we could envisage the accreditation of a certain number of ECs, possibly subdivided by therapeutic fields, with the trials to be evaluated distributed among them, so that each is authorised to issue an opinion that is valid nationally.

Criteria for allocation of life-saving resources during the SARS-COV-2 pandemic: ethical implications and aspects of legal liability.

The issue of political, institutional and professional liability in the context of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic is currently widely debated and involves several levels of investigation. One crucial aspect relates to the allocation of life-saving resources in situations where there is an imbalance between need and availability and the associated questions of ethical and legal liability. This work looks at the implications of the criteria applied to rationing under extraordinary conditions and the issue of their legitimacy. Considering the European scenario, we describe the approach taken by Italy in proposing criteria for pandemic triage of intensive treatment and highlight certain problems and critical issues. We emphasise that the decision, based on a comparative assessment, to deny treatment to a patient in critical condition, compromising that patient's right to care, exceeds the scope of decision-making autonomy of the professional concerned and requires a theoretical and procedural definition shared at multiple levels of society.

Act of Consoling Helps Those Who Console: A Multicenter Observational Survey Study in Hospice Services.

Background: The contemporary scientific literature documents a lack of attention toward the act of consoling put into practice by health care professionals (HCPs) in hospice services. Objective: To describe the act of consoling and its meaning for hospice-employed HCPs. Design: A multicenter observational survey study was performed through a paper-based questionnaire. Subjects: The study was sent to the directors of 10 hospices in Northern Italy and distributed to 232 HCPs. Results: A total of 218 HCPs responded (94%). The results showed that most HCPs consider the practice of consoling to be essential to their profession, but they also underscored the extreme complexity of the process. Conclusion: The act of consoling is not simply a professional duty defined in contractual clauses. Rather, it is a set of specific communicative practices and skills required of HCPs.

Conflicts of Interest Result From Relationships But Are Not Resolved by Preventing Relationships.

Goldberg notes that the relationship is a component of Conflicts of Interests (COIs). Networks of relationships and the simultaneous presence of several interests are not negative per se but become so when they generate a conflict that undermines impartiality. The solution to the problem of COIs, therefore, cannot be to abolish relationships and the interests that they necessarily express but rather to verify whether those relationships are such as to unduly affect an individual's judgement. The evolution of an Italian legislation about COIs is eloquent in this regard.

A few ethical issues in translational research for medicinal products discovery and development.

The results obtained with basic research showing significant therapeutic promise are often not translated into clinical applications. The purpose of translational research is to favour the transition of basic research to application at the patient's bedside, and from here to routine clinical practice (without excluding the opposite pathway, in which the evidence generated by clinical practice helps to guide research). Although translational research can provide patients with valuable therapeutic resources, it is not risk-free. The most significant ethical issues in translational research on medicinal products derive from the risk of the intention to shorten the timeframes for the application of the results of the research making the scientific methods adopted and the regulatory requisites to be satisfied along the long path from the bench to the patient's bedside less rigorous. This is also relevant during pandemics when shortening the timeline from basic research to bedside is even more crucial. It is therefore necessary to establish defined and agreed requisites in order to guarantee the ethicality of translational research, by promoting the good of individuals and minimising the risks.

Will medically-assisted suicide mean the rebirth of (clinical) ethics committees in Italy?

The Italian Constitutional Court has held that, in certain specific circumstances, prosecution for assisted suicide, regulated by Article 580 of the Criminal Code, is not compatible with the Constitution. The circumstances in question relate to individuals who are being kept alive by life-sustaining treatments, who are fully capable of taking free, informed decisions and are suffering from irreversible conditions that are a source of intolerable physical or mental suffering. The Court has held that the Ethics Committees must assess a request for assisted suicide made by an individual meeting these conditions. The decision requires the identification of the Ethics Committee authorised to issue authorisation in such cases and a guarantee that these Ethics Committees are able to deal with this type of issue. The Court's decision is an important opportunity to establish and promote clinical Ethics Committees, which are not nationally regulated in Italy and exist in very small numbers in only a few parts of the country.

Poor implementation of the EU clinical trial regulation is a major threat for pragmatic trials in European countries.

The principle of pragmatism in clinical trials has been broadly recognised as a way to close the gap between research and practice. In this contribution, we argue that the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials in Europe may be hampered by poor implementation of current European Union's Clinical Trial Regulation No. 536/2014.

Anonymity and Organ Donation: Ethical and Policy Implications After the Opinion Released by the Italian Committee for Bioethics.

According to Law 91/1999, art. 18, in Italy, health care professionals and administrative staff involved in the process of organ collection and transplantation are required to ensure anonymity of both the donor and the recipient. Against this backdrop, in 2018, the Italian Committee for Bioethics (ICB) released an official opinion titled "Opinion on the preservation of the anonymity of donor and receiver in the transplantation of organs" that offers a new perspective on the topic, effectively opening the possibility of anonymity ending at certain conditions. The relevance of anonymity within the transplant network is a globally recognized principle with a strong ethical value. In this article, based on the experience of one author directly involved in the ICB opinion drafting, we examine the document and discuss how such a proposal could be implemented at the legislative level.

[Organ donor families should be free to meet their recipients under controlled conditions if both sides wish, Italian National Committee for Bioethics says (Italian translation by A. Scarabelli)].

On 27 September 2018 the Italian Committee for Bioethics (ICB) adopted an opinion regarding the possibility of an exception to the anonymity obligation when both parties agree and have signed an appropriate informed consent form. According to the IBC any contact between the donor's family and recipient must be managed by a third-party body pertaining to the National Health Service, established to guarantee strict control over the expression of consent in order to avoid any risk of inappropriate behaviour. The paper traces how Reg and Maggie Green, on holiday from California, donated the organs of their seven-year old son, Nicholas, to seven Italians after he had been shot in a carjacking on the Salerno-Reggio Calabria highway in 1994. Reluctant as a foreigner to propose a change in Italian law that effectively prevents the two sides from contacting each other, Reg Green held back for 22 years until, at age 87, he began a public campaign to voice his concern that the law was hurting transplant families rather than helping them. (This is the Italian translation of an article published in the Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità 2019; 55(1):6-9. https://doi.org/10.4415/ANN_19_01_03).

Ethics committees and research in Italy: seeking new regulatory frameworks (with a look at the past). Commentary.

The legislation of Italy and the European Union requires a shift in terms of the organisation and national regulation of ethics committees and clinical trials. More generally, this affects the entire sphere of biomedical research. The first part of this contribution provides a brief review of the history of ethics committees in Italy. We then discuss the current situation and formulate proposals. There is a vital need for rules that promote efficiency of ethics committees, to guarantee that Italy's position remains competitive and attractive within the European Union.