Terminating clinical trials without sufficient subjects.

Medical research involving human subjects can be risky and burdensome. Therefore, such research must be reviewed and approved by a Research Ethics Committee (REC). To guarantee the safety of the subjects, it is very important that these studies be conducted in accordance with the approved protocol. An important issue in this respect is whether studies include the requisite number of subjects based on the research question. The research question is unlikely to be answered reliably if the requisite number of subjects is not met. In such cases, subjects are exposed to unnecessary risks and burdens. In this descriptive study, the authors evaluated how frequently studies are completed with the required number of subjects. Moreover, the authors identified the characteristics of research that does and does not include the required number of subjects. The results of this study show that a considerable proportion of studies (41/107) were terminated although they failed to recruit a sufficient number of subjects. Furthermore, the authors found that investigator-initiated studies have significantly (p=0.028) more problems in recruiting the requisite number of subjects than studies initiated by pharmaceutical companies. Potential solutions are discussed to reduce the number of studies that do not include a sufficient number of subjects.

Lessons learned from unsolicited findings in clinical exome sequencing of 16,482 individuals.

Unsolicited findings (UFs) are uncovered unintentionally and predispose to a disease unrelated to the clinical question. The frequency and nature of UFs uncovered in clinical practice remain largely unexplored. We here evaluated UFs identified during a 5-year period in which 16,482 index patients received clinical whole-exome sequencing (WES). UFs were identified in 0.58% (95/16,482) of index patients, indicating that the overall frequency of UFs in clinical WES is low. Fewer UFs were identified using restricted disease-gene panels (0.03%) than when using whole-exome/Mendeliome analysis (1.03%). The UF was disclosed to 86 of 95 individuals, for reasons of medical actionability. Only 61% of these UFs reside in a gene that is listed on the "ACMG59"-list, representing a list of 59 genes for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends UF disclosure. The remaining 39% were grouped into four categories: disorders similar to "ACMG59"-listed disorders (25%); disorders for which disease manifestation could be influenced (7%); UFs providing reproductive options (2%); and UFs with pharmacogenetic implications (5%). Hence, our experience shows that UFs predisposing to medically actionable disorders affect a broader range of genes than listed on the "ACMG59", advocating that a pre-defined gene list is too restrictive, and that UFs may require ad hoc evaluation of medical actionability. While both the identification and disclosure of UFs depend on local policy, our lessons learned provide general essential insight into the nature and odds of UFs in clinical exome sequencing.

Legal and Ethical Challenges in Developing a Dutch Nationwide Hepatitis C Retrieval Project (CELINE).

In 2016 the World Health Organization (WHO) called upon nations worldwide to eliminate viral hepatitis. Due to suboptimal hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies in the past, many patients could not be treated or cured. With the current options, all patients can be treated and >90% is cured. However, these developments have not reached all patients, especially those who were lost to follow-up (LTFU) in previous years, an estimated 30% in the Netherlands. Retrieving these patients can contribute to HCV elimination. In light of this, we aimed to develop a nationwide retrieval strategy. During development we identified four major challenges. The first challenge is ethical and arises from the aim of the project: should physicians retrieve LTFU patients? We argue that the arguments in favour outweigh those against. The three other challenges are methodological and mainly legal in nature. Firstly, how far back are we allowed to trace LTFU patients? In the Netherlands, patient files should be kept for a minimum of fifteen years, but in chronic disease they may be archived longer. Secondly, which professional should identify the LTFU patients? Ideally this would be the treating physician, but we describe the circumstances that allow inclusion of assistance. Lastly, what is the proper way to invite the LTFU patients? We found that we can often request current address information from municipalities, and explain this process in detail. The offered solutions are feasible and translatable to other healthcare environments. We hope to take away any insecurities people may have about the ethical and legal nature of such a retrieval project and hope to inspire others to follow in our footsteps.

N-of-1 Trials: Evidence-Based Clinical Care or Medical Research that Requires IRB Approval? A Practical Flowchart Based on an Ethical Framework.

N-of-1 trials can provide high-class evidence on drug treatment effectiveness at the individual patient level and have been given renewed interest over the past decade due to improvements of the initial single patient design. Despite these recent developments, there is still no consensus under what circumstances N-of-1 trials should be considered as part of evidence-based clinical care and when they represent medical research with need for institutional review board (IRB) approval. This lack of consensus forms an obstacle for a more widespread implementation of N-of-1 trials. Based upon the existing literature, we as a group of researchers involved in N-of-1 trials and members of the IRB of a tertiary academic referral center, designed a practical flowchart based on an ethical framework to help make this distinction. The ethical framework together with a practical flowchart are presented in this communication.