Criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure: research and policy agenda.

More than half of US jurisdictions have laws criminalizing knowing exposure to or transmission of HIV, yet little evidence supports these laws' effectiveness in reducing HIV incidence. These laws may undermine prevention efforts outlined in the US National HIV/AIDS Strategy, in which the United States has invested substantial federal funds. Future research should include studies of (1) the impact of US HIV exposure laws on public health systems and practices; (2) enforcement of these laws, including arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing; (3) alternatives to HIV exposure laws; and (4) direct and opportunity costs of enforcement. Policy efforts to mitigate potential negative impacts of these laws could include developing prosecutorial guidelines, modernized statutes, and model public health policies and protocols.

Social contexts influence ethical considerations of research.

This article argues that we could improve the design of research protocols by developing an awareness of and a responsiveness to the social contexts of all the actors in the research enterprise, including subjects, investigators, sponsors, and members of the community in which the research will be conducted. "Social context" refers to the settings in which the actors are situated, including, but not limited to, their social, economic, political, cultural, and technological features. The utility of thinking about social contexts is introduced and exemplified by the presentation of a hypothetical case in which one central issue is limitation of the probability of injury to subjects by selection of individuals who are not expected to live long enough for the known risks of the study to become manifest as harms. Benefits of such considerations may include enhanced subject satisfaction and cooperation, community acceptance, and improved data quality, among other desirable consequences.

Research involving adolescents as subjects : ethical considerations.

Research involving adolescents as subjects is much more difficult to carry out than it ought to be. The excessive burdens in the field are borne by those who design and carry out the research, and also by those who review and monitor such research to ensure compliance with regulations and other policies designed to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. This chapter is an overview of issues that are specific to research that involves adolescents. Problems and challenges are reviewed, and potential solutions suggested. The chapter also provides suggestions for improving current regulatory policies and practices so as to reduce bureaucratic impediments.

The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care.

Quality improvement (QI) activities can improve health care but must be conducted ethically. The Hastings Center convened leaders and scholars to address ethical requirements for QI and their relationship to regulations protecting human subjects of research. The group defined QI as systematic, data-guided activities designed to bring about immediate improvements in health care delivery in particular settings and concluded that QI is an intrinsic part of normal health care operations. Both clinicians and patients have an ethical responsibility to participate in QI, provided that it complies with specified ethical requirements. Most QI activities are not human subjects research and should not undergo review by an institutional review board; rather, appropriately calibrated supervision of QI activities should be part of professional supervision of clinical practice. The group formulated a framework that would use key characteristics of a project and its context to categorize it as QI, human subjects research, or both, with the potential of a customized institutional review board process for the overlap category. The group recommended a period of innovation and evaluation to refine the framework for ethical conduct of QI and to integrate that framework into clinical practice.

Upregulation of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and NAD(P)H oxidase activity increases oxidative stress in failing human heart.

BACKGROUND: We previously found that higher NADPH levels produced by glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) can enhance myocardial superoxide generation by NAD(P)H oxidase in a dog model of dilated cardiomyopathy. Therefore, we tested whether G6PD activity is elevated and enhances NADPH level and increases NAD(P)H oxidase-derived superoxide production in the myocardium from patients with heart failure from ischemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Surgical discards of left ventricle were collected from 8 congestive heart failure patients undergoing surgical ventricular restoration procedures, whereas control left ventricle tissue was obtained from 5 normal donor hearts deemed not suitable for transplantation. Biochemical assays were performed in tissue homogenates. We found that superoxide and hydrogen peroxide were elevated, respectively, by 9- and 3-fold in failing versus normal hearts (P < .05). The NAD(P)H oxidase inhibitors gp91(ds-tat), apocynin, and diphenyleneiodonium, significantly inhibited superoxide generation by approximately 75%, 89%, and 91%, respectively. Superoxide production by NAD(P)H oxidase increased 10- and 3-fold by adding NADPH (100 micromol/L) and NADH (100 micromol/L), respectively, in a DPI- and gp91(ds-tat)-inhibitable manner. Interestingly, chelerythrine, a PKC inhibitor, and PP2, a Src kinase family inhibitor, reduced G6PD activity (0.29 +/- 0.04 nM x min x mg protein) by 50% and 51% and these inhibitors also decreased myocardial superoxide by 99% and 79%, respectively. Furthermore, 6-aminonicotinamide, a G6PD inhibitor, decreased myocardial superoxide production by 71%. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that high NAD(P)H oxidase, fueled by G6PD-derived NADPH, generates most of the superoxide in failing hearts of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. In addition, PKC-Src kinase signaling pathways seem to coordinate the activation of both G6PD and NAD(P)H oxidase in human cardiac muscle.

Responsibilities of Data Monitoring Committees: Consensus Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: A data monitoring committee (DMC) has special responsibilities for protecting the safety of clinical trial participants. Few guidance documents are available that address the operations and mechanics of establishing, serving on, or reporting to a DMC. This article provides a practical guide to sponsors, institutions, and individuals responsible for, or serving on, a DMC. METHODS: A workgroup of professionals from academia and not-for-profit and commercial organizations that included investigators, statisticians, patient advocates, and ethicists met to define the essential elements of planning, coordinating, and populating a DMC. All members of the group have formed, served on, advised, or worked with DMCs. RESULTS: The group outlined the objectives and mechanics of running a DMC, including operational and practical considerations, membership characteristics, roles, members' liability, and indemnification. Further, it delineated the roles and responsibilities of each DMC member. CONCLUSIONS: The group recommended practices for each phase of the DMC process from inception through execution of a clinical trial, with appropriate considerations for confidentiality. The group's practical guidance should assist in comprehensive oversight of appropriate clinical trials and should help DMC members execute their obligations with greater assurance.

Development, implementation and critique of a bioethics framework for pharmaceutical sponsors of human biomedical research.

Pharmaceutical human biomedical research is a multi-dimensional endeavor that requires collaboration among many parties, including those who sponsor, conduct, participate in, or stand to benefit from the research. Human subjects' protections have been promulgated to ensure that the benefits of such research are accomplished with respect for and minimal risk to individual research participants, and with an overall sense of fairness. Although these protections are foundational to clinical research, most ethics guidance primarily highlights the responsibilities of investigators and ethics review boards. Currently, there is no published resource that comprehensively addresses bioethical responsibilities of industry sponsors; including their responsibilities to parties who are not research participants, but are, nevertheless key stakeholders in the endeavor. To fill this void, in 2010 Eli Lilly and Company instituted a Bioethics Framework for Human Biomedical Research. This paper describes how the framework was developed and implemented and provides a critique based on four years of experience. A companion article provides the actual document used by Eli Lilly and Company to guide ethical decisions regarding all phases of human clinical trials. While many of the concepts presented in this framework are not novel, compiling them in a manner that articulates the ethical responsibilities of a sponsor is novel. By utilizing this type of bioethics framework, we have been able to develop bioethics positions on various topics, provide research ethics consultations, and integrate bioethics into the daily operations of our human biomedical research. We hope that by sharing these companion papers we will stimulate discussion within and outside the biopharmaceutical industry for the benefit of the multiple parties involved in pharmaceutical human biomedical research.

Eli Lilly and Company's bioethics framework for human biomedical research.

Current ethics and good clinical practice guidelines address various aspects of pharmaceutical research and development, but do not comprehensively address the bioethical responsibilities of sponsors. To fill this void, in 2010 Eli Lilly and Company developed and implemented a Bioethics Framework for Human Biomedical Research to guide ethical decisions. (See our companion article that describes how the framework was developed and implemented and provides a critique of its usefulness and limitations.) This paper presents the actual framework that serves as a company resource for employee education and bioethics deliberations. The framework consists of four basic ethical principles and 13 essential elements for ethical human biomedical research and resides within the context of our company's mission, vision and values. For each component of the framework, we provide a high-level overview followed by a detailed description with cross-references to relevant well regarded guidance documents. The principles and guidance described should be familiar to those acquainted with research ethics. Therefore the novelty of the framework lies not in the foundational concepts presented as much as the attempt to specify and compile a sponsor's bioethical responsibilities to multiple stakeholders into one resource. When such a framework is employed, it can serve as a bioethical foundation to inform decisions and actions throughout clinical planning, trial design, study implementation and closeout, as well as to inform company positions on bioethical issues. The framework is, therefore, a useful tool for translating ethical aspirations into action - to help ensure pharmaceutical human biomedical research is conducted in a manner that aligns with consensus ethics principles, as well as a sponsor's core values.

Is the use of placebo controls ethically permissible in clinical trials of agents intended to reduce fractures in osteoporosis?

Substantial progress has been made in developing treatments that reduce the risk of fractures in osteoporosis. However, available treatments are only partially effective, they are not widely used, and there is need to search for more effective means of fracture prevention. Currently known effective means of reducing fractures were found using randomized placebo-controlled trials. The use of placebo controls in clinical trials has been a subject of significant controversy in recent years. The Declaration of Helsinki revision of October 2000 caused great concern among clinical investigators about the future use of placebo controls if known effective therapeutic agents are available. A working group of ethicists, clinical trial design experts, and clinical investigators examined the current state of knowledge of osteoporosis treatment and trials. They concluded that if placebo controls put subjects at substantial risk of serious outcomes, they are not ethically permissible. Placebo controls in osteoporosis trials with fracture as the measured outcome are permissible only under narrowly defined conditions. Placebo controls may be used if competent, well-informed patients refuse approved therapies for sound reasons, there is a reasonable basis for substantial disagreement or lack of consensus among professionals about whether approved treatments are better than placebos, or subjects are refractory to known effective agents. Active control trials are permissible and desirable if they can be designed and conducted in ways that overcome the interpretive difficulties often associated with such trials.

The Declaration of Helsinki and clinical trials: a focus on placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' goal was to consider ethical approaches to placebo-controlled clinical trials in the light of the evolving Declaration of Helsinki, with special attention to applications to research on schizophrenia. METHOD: They review the Helsinki position on placebos, including the 2002 Clarification, exploring the potential negative effects of banning placebos in studies involving conditions for which at least partially effective treatments exist. The Clarification is examined as an approach to this issue that, in contrast to earlier formulations, better acknowledges the complexity of clinical research and the need for protocol-specific determinations. Placebo controls in schizophrenia studies are used to illustrate issues relevant to all clinical research on therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: The Helsinki Clarification provides a basis for operationalizing criteria for review of placebo use in clinical trials. Six criteria are proposed for judging the ethical acceptability of placebo controls, including the likelihood that the intervention being tested will have clinically significant advantages over existing treatments, the presence of compelling reasons for placebo use, subject selection that minimizes the possibility of serious adverse consequences, and a risk-versus-benefit analysis that favors the advantages from placebo use over the risks to subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The Helsinki Clarification constitutes an important advance in international approaches to placebo use, requiring protocol-by-protocol judgments on complex issues of clinical research ethics. When operationalized, it provides review boards with a useful methodology for reaching determinations on the appropriateness of placebo controls in particular studies.

Research ethics for mental health science involving ethnic minority children and youths.

In response to U.S. Public Health Service projects promoting attention to disparities in the outcomes of mental health treatments, in July 2001, the American Psychological Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the Fordham University Center for Ethics Education convened a group of national leaders in bioethics, multicultural research, and ethnic minority mental health to produce a living document to guide ethical decision making for mental health research involving ethnic minority children and youths. This report summarizes the key recommendations distilled from these discussions.

Knowledge and usability of a trauma training system for general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: Resident work-hour restrictions challenge educators to supplement residents' surgical education. We evaluated a computer-based trauma surgery system's ability to increase residents' surgical knowledge. METHODS: Modules on thoracic and abdominal surgical approaches were evaluated. Surgical residents with 1 or more years of experience completed the pretest, an interactive module, the post-test, and a usability survey. RESULTS: Fifteen participants completed both modules. Thoracic module pretest and post-test scores were 56 ± 11 (mean ± standard deviation) and 90 ± 10, respectively (P < .0001). Mean abdominal module scores were 48 ± 20 and 85 ± 14, respectively (P < .0001). The usability survey showed that 87% of participants would use these modules to supplement their trauma training, 93% could easily distinguish anatomic detail, and 100% thought that procedures were shown clearly. CONCLUSIONS: This novel computer-based trauma education training system improved residents' knowledge of anatomy, surgical incisions, exposures, and technique. As innovative didactic tools arise in postgraduate medical education, it is crucial to document their effects on educational processes, learning satisfaction, and knowledge outcomes.

Overcoming burdens in the regulation of clinical research in children. Proceedings of a consensus conference, in historical context.

BACKGROUND: Many investigators are concerned that the modes of implementation and enforcement of the federal regulations designed to protect children are unduly impeding pediatric clinical research. OBJECTIVE: To assess regulatory impediments to clinical research involving children and to develop recommendations to ameliorate them. PARTICIPANTS: The Pediatric Endocrine Society and The Endocrine Society convened a consensus conference involving experts and stakeholders in patient-oriented research involving children and adolescents in 2008. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Following presentations that reviewed problematic issues around key regulations, participants divided into working groups to develop potential solutions that could be adopted at local and federal levels. Presentations to the full assembly were then debated. A writing committee then drafted a summary of the discussions and main conclusions, placing them in historical context, and submitted it to all participants for comment with the aim of developing consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations designed to facilitate the ethical conduct of research involving children addressed the interpretation of ambiguous regulatory terms such as "minimal risk" and "condition" and called for the development by professional societies of best practice primers for common research procedures that would be informative to both investigators and institutional review boards. A call was issued for improved guidance from the Office for Human Research Protections and Food and Drug Administration as well as for the development by professional societies of a process to monitor progress in improving human subject research regulation. Finally, a need for systematic research to define the nature and extent of institutional obstacles to pediatric research was recognized.