Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?

BACKGROUND: Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts. MAIN TEXT: In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC's scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC's way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.

Linking the Declarations of Helsinki and of Taipei: Critical Challenges of Future-Oriented Research Ethics.

Expansion of data-driven research in the 21st century has posed challenges in the evolution of the international agreed framework of research ethics. The World Medical Association (WMA)'s Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) has provided ethical principles for medical research involving humans since 1964, with the last update in 2013. To complement the DoH, WMA issued the Declaration of Taipei (DoT) in 2016 to provide additional principles for health databases and biobanks. However, the ethical principles for secondary use of data or material obtained in research remain unclear. With such a perspective, the Working Group on Ethics (WGE) of the International Federation of Associations of Pharmaceutical Physicians and Pharmaceutical Medicine (IFAPP) suggests a closer scientific linkage in the DoH to the (Declaration of Taipei) DoT focusing specifically on areas that will facilitate data-driven research, and to further strengthen the protection of research participants.

Including adolescents of childbearing potential in clinical trials with possible exposure to teratogenic medication: a challenge for paediatricians and researchers.

The issue of contraception and pregnancy tests among minor adolescent women participating in clinical trials, whether healthy or suffering from a disease, represents a challenging issue for paediatricians and researchers, given the potential harmful effect of various therapeutic procedures being tested. First, they need to gauge at what age or developmental stage they need to impose pregnancy tests and contraception. Second, if the adolescent denies any sexual activity, it may be ethically questionable to impose such procedures. Third, these professionals must deal with the issue of confidentiality, taking into account the fact that some adolescents engage in penetrative sexual intercourse without their parents or caregivers knowing. Fourth, in such cases, they must assess the extent to which a minor adolescent can be considered as competent (capable of making autonomous decisions) and deserves privacy and confidentiality. There is indeed a legal obligation for the provider to check that sexual experiences and intercourse take place within a safe relationship. Fifth, if the prescription of contraception is warranted, they have to decide who should assist the adolescent in choosing the method. Finally, with the occurrence of a positive pregnancy test, they may face the rare instance of a competent minor adolescent who refuses to inform her parents. This article has been developed by a group of experts under the auspices of swissethics, the Swiss Association of Research Ethics Committees and SwissPedNet, the umbrella organisation that coordinates the paediatric research in Switzerland. The paper reviews how to address practical and ethical questions regarding minor adolescents of childbearing potential enrolled in a clinical trial that may involve teratogenic medication and offers a series of concrete advice and tools for dealing with problematic situations. Most paediatric protocols stipulate that adolescents included in clinical trials involving potentially teratogenic drugs should undergo pregnancy tests and use contraception. The circumstances in which such requirements are undertaken, however, has not been sufficiently addressed. The recommendations presented in this article will assist researchers in assessing which circumstances apply when considering minor adolescents as individuals with childbearing potentials. It also offers concrete suggestions for tackling such situations.

Deficiencies in paediatric research applications delaying ethics committee approval.

BACKGROUND: A clinical research application must be submitted for approval by a competent ethics committee (EC) before a study can be executed. There is very limited information on how such submissions could be optimised, especially regarding research in children and adolescents, which requires particular caution and age-adapted patient information. METHODS: We assessed all research applications from the University Children’s Hospital Zurich submitted to the EC of the Canton of Zurich in 2014–2015, i.e., in the first two years after Switzerland’s new Human Research Act came into effect. Moreover, we validated our findings by assessing a randomly selected sample of applications from the same hospital in 2018–2019. RESULTS: We assessed a total of 86 applications from 2014–2015, originating from 29 departments and sub-specialties. The EC judged that it was not responsible for three applications and declined an assessment for another three because the studies had already been conducted. Thus, we included 80 applications in the present analysis (18 clinical trials, 52 research projects, 10 further use projects). Applicants withdrew four applications before the EC’s final decision and the EC rejected two after assessment. The EC had objections in 46 (62%) of the remaining 74 applications. Formal, including formal legal, objections (n = 503) and legal objections (n = 287) accounted for the vast majority of objections. There were also 71 ethical and 82 scientific objections. The most frequent formal and formal legal objections were incomplete or missing age-adapted patient information (49%) and incorrect templates for informed consent and signature forms (46%). A review of the 20 randomly selected applications from 2018–2019 confirmed that four out of the five most frequent deficiencies relating to informed consent were identical to those observed in the 2014–2015 applications. CONCLUSIONS: Careful preparation of submission documents by the investigators and close adherence to formal and legal requirements have the potential to considerably optimise and expedite the EC review process, and thus the commencement of the clinical research.    .

Development and Use of Gene Therapy Orphan Drugs-Ethical Needs for a Broader Cooperation Between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Society.

Gene therapy orphan medicinal products constitute a unique group of new drugs which in case of hereditary diseases are usually administered only once at an early age, in the hope to provide sufficient gene product to last for the entire life of the patients. The combination of an exceptionally large single payment and the life-long clinical follow-up needed for understanding the long-term benefits and safety of gene therapy, represent new types of scientific, financial, social and ethical challenges for the pharmaceutical industry, regulators and society. With special consideration of the uniqueness and importance of gene therapy, the authors propose a three points plan for a close cooperation between the pharmaceutical industry and society to develop orphan gene therapy. (1) In fully transparent health technology negotiations a close and long-lasting, contractually fixed cooperation should be established between the manufacturers and local health-care stakeholders for sharing the medical and scientific benefits, the financial risks as well as the burdens of the post-authorization clinical and regulatory development. (2) The parties should agree on a fair, locally affordable drug price without the usually very high premium price calculated to compensate for the low number of patients. In case of high manufacturing costs, the companies should offer prolonged, 15-20 years long payment by installment with risk-sharing, especially considering that the late outcome of the treatment is unknown. Society should assist scientifically and financially organizing a specific patient registry, treatment in specialized hospitals and adequate long-term follow-up of patients, the coordinated management of financial transactions related to the risk sharing program. (3) The post-authorization treatment and prolonged observation of additional new cases coordinated by society should provide real world data needed for the modern complex regulatory evaluation of gene therapy products by the competent authorities. We assume that fair sharing of the benefits and risks as well as a well-organized cooperation of society with the industry in collecting real world evidence might result in better drug evaluation and improved accessibility due to lower prices. The outlined concept might support gene therapy more efficiently than the presently requested outstandingly high prices.

Corrigendum: Linking the Declarations of Helsinki and of Taipei: Critical Challenges of Future-Oriented Research Ethics.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.579714.].

The Shared Ethical Responsibility of Medically and Non-medically Qualified Experts in Human Drug Development Teams.

The complexity of developing and applying increasingly sophisticated new medicinal products has led to the participation of many non-medically qualified scientists in multi-disciplinary non-clinical and clinical drug development teams world-wide. In this introductory paper to the "IFAPP International Ethics Framework for Pharmaceutical Physicians and Medicines Development Scientists" it is argued that all members of such multidisciplinary teams must share the scientific and ethical responsibilities since they all influence directly or indirectly both the outcome of the various phases of the medicines development projects and the safety of the research subjects involved. The participating medical practitioner retains the overriding responsibility and the final decision to stop a trial if the well-being of the research subjects is seriously endangered. All the team members should follow the main ethical principles governing human research, the respect for autonomy, justice, beneficence and non-maleficence. Nevertheless, the weighing of these principles might be different under various conditions according to the specialty of the members.

[Combined endpoints]. / Kombinierte Endpunkte.

The use of a combined (composite) endpoint as a primary outcome in clinical studies offers many advantages, e.g., increased statistical efficiency, smaller sample sizes, shorter study completion times, and the possibility for a summary measure of different treatment effects. However, basic clinical and statistical requirements need to be respected in order to obtain valid results and to avoid difficulties in their interpretation later. Each component of a combined endpoint must be clinically meaningful. Patients must be followed up until death or to the planned end of the trial; these rules also apply to premature treatment withdrawal or after occurrence of the first pre-defined component event. All components of the composite endpoint need to be analysed separately in order to find out how they contribute to the overall result and to avoid the masking of negative effects on one or more components. Difficulties in interpretation may arise when the results for single components of the combined endpoint head in opposite directions, and when "hard" clinical outcomes are combined with "soft" endpoints, particularly if the latter occur much more frequently but are of minor clinical relevance.