Daniel K. Nelson

Clinical Trials and Medical Care: Defining the Therapeutic Misconception

A key component of informed consent to participate in medical research includes understanding that research is not the same as treatment.

Toward protecting the safety of participants in clinical trials

It is a widely held belief that the current system of oversight of clinical research, particularly the means of assessing risks and minimizing harms to participants in clinical trials, could be improved. In particular, the system is inefficient with overemphasis on the monitoring ability of some groups such as research ethics review boards and investigators, underemphasis on others such as data monitoring committees (DMCs) and sponsors, confusion about responsibilities for safety and imperfect communication between these different groups. Research ethics review boards are not able to perform safety monitoring by review of individual adverse events and are often burdened by duplicative reviews of large multicenter studies. There are no standards for DMCs to ensure they can reliably identify safety issues. Sponsors may be overreliant on data audits and slow to disseminate safety data in a coherent summary. Investigators, their staffs and clinical sites may not fully appreciate all the nuances of good clinical practice or may be inattentive to the daily conduct of studies. Regulators, particularly those in the United States, have failed to completely harmonize their policies with each other or with international regulatory agencies. We recommend well-designed monitoring plans for all studies that are appropriate to their scope and risk, more centralized review of large multisite studies and closer local scrutiny of single-institution studies. In addition, sponsors should pay greater attention to monitoring adverse events and keeping up-to-date databases or investigators brochures emphasizing safety issues. A minimal standard of education or expertise in good clinical practice should be established for investigators, their staffs and research ethics review board members. DMC composition and functions should be standardized and regulations should be harmonized nationally and internationally. Finally, there should be a concerted effort to study the efficacy of various components of the system.

RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON GENOTYPE-DRIVEN RESEARCH RECRUITMENT

Genotype-driven recruitment is a potentially powerful approach for studying human genetic variation but presents ethical challenges. We conducted in-depth interviews with research participants in six studies where such recruitment occurred. Nearly all responded favorably to the acceptability of recontact for research recruitment, and genotype-driven recruitment was viewed as a positive sign of scientific advancement. Reactions to questions about the disclosure of individual genetic research results varied. Common themes included explaining the purpose of recontact, informing decisions about further participation, reciprocity, “information is valuable,” and the possibility of benefit, as well as concerns about undue distress and misunderstanding. Our findings suggest contact about additional research may be least concerning if it involves a known element (e.g., trusted researchers). Also, for genotype-driven recruitment, it may be appropriate to set a lower bar for disclosure of individual results than the clinical utility threshold recommended more generally.

A semiquantitative metric for evaluating clinical actionability of incidental or secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing.

Purpose:As genome-scale sequencing is increasingly applied in clinical scenarios, a wide variety of genomic findings will be discovered as secondary or incidental findings, and there is debate about how they should be handled. The clinical actionability of such findings varies, necessitating standardized frameworks for a priori decision making about their analysis.Methods:We established a semiquantitative metric to assess five elements of actionability: severity and likelihood of the disease outcome, efficacy and burden of intervention, and knowledge base, with a total score from 0 to 15.Results:The semiquantitative metric was applied to a list of putative actionable conditions, the list of genes recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) for return when deleterious variants are discovered as secondary/incidental findings, and a random sample of 1,000 genes. Scores from the list of putative actionable conditions (median = 12) and the ACMG list (median = 11) were both statistically different than the randomly selected genes (median = 7) (P < 0.0001, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test).Conclusion:Gene–disease pairs having a score of 11 or higher represent the top quintile of actionability. The semiquantitative metric effectively assesses clinical actionability, promotes transparency, and may facilitate assessments of clinical actionability by various groups and in diverse contexts.Genet Med 18 5, 467–475.

Recommendations for ethical approaches to genotype-driven research recruitment

Recruiting research participants based on genetic information generated about them in a prior study is a potentially powerful way to study the functional significance of human genetic variation. However, it also presents significant ethical challenges that, to date, have received only minimal consideration. We convened a multi-disciplinary workshop to discuss key issues relevant to the conduct and oversight of genotype-driven recruitment and to translate those considerations into practical policy recommendations. Workshop participants were invited from around the US, and included genomic researchers and study coordinators, research participants, clinicians, bioethics scholars, experts in human research protections, and government representatives. Discussion was directed by experienced facilitators and informed by empirical data collected in a national survey of IRB chairs and in-depth interviews with research participants in studies where genotype-driven recontact occurred. A high degree of consensus was attained on the resulting seven recommendations, which cover informed consent disclosures and choices, the process for how and by whom participants are recontacted, the disclosure of individual genetic research results, and the importance of tailoring approaches based on specific contextual factors. These recommendations are intended to represent a balanced approach—protecting research participants, yet avoiding overly restrictive policies that hinder advancement on important scientific questions.

Applying Research Ethics Guidelines: The View from a Sub-Saharan Research Ethics Committee:

Considerable variation has been demonstrated in applying regulations across research ethics committees (RECs) in the U.S., U.K., and European nations. With the rise of international research collaborations, RECs in developing countries apply a variety of international regulations. We conducted a qualitative descriptive pilot study with members of the national REC in Malawi to determine criteria they use to review research, and their views on international collaborations. Qualitative content analysis demonstrated that international guidelines are interpreted in light of local African conditions such that emphasis is placed on examining benefit to the community and ensuring the informed consent process translates concepts in locally-meaningful ways. Members suggest that RECs often must comply with regulations that do not fit local conditions. Recommendations are provided for improving such international collaborations.

Getting from A to IRB: developing an institutional review board at a historically black university.

Shaw university, the oldest historically black college or university in the southern USA, recently partnered with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a major research institution in North Carolina, to further develop Shaws research infrastructure. One aim of the partnership involved establishing a human research ethics committee and an accompanying administrative structure and research ethics education program. This paper describes the process of developing an entire human research protection program de novo through collaboration with and mentoring by the members of the human research protection program at a nearby major research institution. This paper provides a detailed description of the aims, procedures, accomplishments, and challenges involved in such a project, which may serve as a useful model for other primarily teaching institutions wishing to develop research infrastructure and ethical capacity.