Adam Joel Mrdjenovich

Patient Preference Clinical Trials: Why and When They Will Sometimes Be Preferred

In a preference clinical trial (PCT), two or more health-care interventions are compared among several groups of patients, at least some of whom have purposefully chosen the intervention to be administered to them. This stands in contrast to the randomized, controlled clinical trial (RCT), where patients are randomly assigned to receive one of the available test interventions. This article argues that when comparing two interventions, A and B, when blinding (or masking) the interventions is difficult or impossible and at least some of the potential participants prefer one or the other of the interventions, then the use of a PCT merits consideration. PCTs can be designed in several different ways, and the selection should be driven by the clinical question posed. PCTs also fall towards the pragmatic endpoint of the explanatory/pragmatic clinical trial continuum, suggesting that they may more favorably influence clinical decision-making in real-world contexts. Researchers often want to know not what is the best treatment irrespective of choice and compliance, but whether an intervention can work for the patients who choose it. If we want to answer the latter question, we must let patients choose.

The Ethics of Clinical Care and the Ethics of Clinical Research: Yin and Yang

The Belmont Reports distinction between research and the practice of accepted therapy has led various authors to suggest that these purportedly distinct activities should be governed by different ethical principles. We consider some of the ethical consequences of attempts to separate the two and conclude that separation fails along ontological, ethical, and epistemological dimensions. Clinical practice and clinical research, as with yin and yang, can be thought of as complementary forces interacting to form a dynamic system in which the whole exceeds the sum of its parts. Just as effective clinical practice cannot exist without clinical research, meaningful clinical research requires the context of clinical practice. We defend this thesis by triangulation, that is, by outlining how multiple investigators have reached this conclusion on the basis of varied theoretical and applied approaches. More confidence can be placed in a result if different methods/viewpoints have led to that result.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: Decision-Based Evidence

In the clinical research context, comparative effectiveness research (CER) refers to the comparison of several health-care interventions administered under real-world conditions to individuals representative of the day-to-day clinical practice target population. We provide a brief history of CER and argue that CER can be used to deliver useful, but currently lacking information. Three study designs that can accomplish this are discussed, and incorporating CER into cost-benefit analyses is examined. The relationships between CER and evidence-based and personalized medicine are also considered, as is the challenge of implementing CER results into routine clinical practice.

Schemata, CONSORT, and the Salk Polio Vaccine Trial.

In this essay, we defend the design of the Salk polio vaccine trial and try to put some limits on the role schemata should play in designing clinical research studies. Our presentation is structured as a response to de Freitas and Pietrobon (de Freitas, R. S. and R. Pietrobon. 2007. Whoever could get rid of the context of discovery/context of justification dichotomy? A proposal based on recent developments in clinical research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32:25-42.) who identified the CONSORT statement as a schema that would have, had it existed at the time, ruled out the design of the Salk polio vaccine trial of 1954 in favor of a completely randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT). We argue that large-scale public health interventions often require evidence beyond simple efficacy, the limit of what an RCT can provide, and that the design actually adopted for the Salk trial represented a reasonable-albeit imperfect-compromise. This is of more than historical interest in that many contemporary studies are of the scale and scope to require a more pragmatic, rather than explanatory, approach to study design (Kowalski, C. J. 2010. Pragmatic problems with clinical equipoise. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53:161-73.).

Analysis of the Nature of IRB Contingencies Required for Informed Consent Document Approval

The University of Michigan Human Research Protection Program formed a six-member committee to analyze the nature of Institutional Review Board (IRB) staff and board contingencies for the approval of informed consent documents. Of the 100 studies examined, 87% had one or more informed consent contingencies. “Omissions” in documentation (40%) and “better clarity” (24%) accounted for the majority, while “word-smithing” accounted for only 10%. This is one of the first studies to examine the nature of IRB contingencies as they relate to informed consent documents. Educational efforts targeting completeness in documentation and clarity on the part of study teams, and discouraging “word-smithing” on the part of IRBs, could reduce the number of informed consent contingencies and expedite the IRB approval process.