Luann E. Van Campen

Clinical use of amyloid-positron emission tomography neuroimaging: Practical and bioethical considerations

Until recently, estimation of β‐amyloid plaque density as a key element for identifying Alzheimers disease (AD) pathology as the cause of cognitive impairment was only possible at autopsy. Now with amyloid‐positron emission tomography (amyloid‐PET) neuroimaging, this AD hallmark can be detected antemortem. Practitioners and patients need to better understand potential diagnostic benefits and limitations of amyloid‐PET and the complex practical, ethical, and social implications surrounding this new technology. To complement the practical considerations, Eli Lilly and Company sponsored a Bioethics Advisory Board to discuss ethical issues that might arise from clinical use of amyloid‐PET neuroimaging with patients being evaluated for causes of cognitive decline. To best address the multifaceted issues associated with amyloid‐PET neuroimaging, we recommend this technology be used only by experienced imaging and treating physicians in appropriately selected patients and only in the context of a comprehensive clinical evaluation with adequate explanations before and after the scan.

Developing good scientific publishing practices: one pharmaceutical company’s perspective

Abstract Background: The scientific publishing practices of the pharmaceutical industry have been heavily criticized in recent years due to the inherent conflict of interest that arises when a pharmaceutical company publishes findings around its own drugs. Scope: Eli Lilly and Company (‘Lilly’) strives for transparency in its day-to-day activities, and, here, shares its principles, policies and practices on publishing “Lilly-sponsored” research. Findings: A conflict of interest does not necessarily equate to biased presentation of research findings, and operating a successful, for-profit business and maintaining a focus on improving the health of patients are not mutually exclusive goals. There is, however, potential for bias, and it is incumbent upon a for-profit to develop publication principles, policies and practices to address this. To this end, Lilly’s Principles of Medical Research states that ‘Lilly discloses publicly all medical research results that are important to patients, healthcare providers or payers – whether favorable or unfavorable to a Lilly product – in an accurate, objective, and balanced manner …’ The preparation of publications of Lilly-sponsored research involves close collaboration between external (i.e., academic or otherwise non-industry employees) and Lilly scientific researchers (including scientific writers), with both serving as authors. Lilly does not support ‘ghost’ or ‘guest’ authorship. Authorship is not just recognition of contribution but also public acknowledgement of responsibility for content, and all authors are expected to take an active role in developing the manuscript in line with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors-based authorship requirements. This is agreed to by authors before the manuscript is started. Lilly provides external authors with access to the trial data for manuscript development. Lilly does not pay external authors for their involvement in manuscript development. Scientific writers at Lilly, often with advanced scientific degrees, offer both scientific and writing expertise in manuscript development and play a project management role. Their role is transparent, and they are included as authors or appropriately acknowledged. Conclusion: Lilly has an ongoing commitment to appropriate publishing practices. Sharing company publication principles, policies and practices is one way to demonstrate this commitment and encourage and facilitate open dialogue among all those involved in drug development.

Incorporating ethical principles into clinical research protocols: a tool for protocol writers and ethics committees

A novel Protocol Ethics Tool Kit (‘Ethics Tool Kit’) has been developed by a multi-stakeholder group of the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Womens Hospital and Harvard. The purpose of the Ethics Tool Kit is to facilitate effective recognition, consideration and deliberation of critical ethical issues in clinical trial protocols. The Ethics Tool Kit may be used by investigators and sponsors to develop a dedicated Ethics Section within a protocol to improve the consistency and transparency between clinical trial protocols and research ethics committee reviews. It may also streamline ethics review and may facilitate and expedite the review process by anticipating the concerns of ethics committee reviewers. Specific attention was given to issues arising in multinational settings. With the use of this Tool Kit, researchers have the opportunity to address critical research ethics issues proactively, potentially speeding the time and easing the process to final protocol approval.

Expanded Access Programs Ethical and Practical Considerations for Biopharmaceutical Sponsors

Expanded access is a regulatory mechanism by which an investigational drug can be made available outside of a clinical trial to treat patients with serious or life-threatening conditions for which there are no satisfactory treatment options. An expanded access program (EAP) is the formal plan under which preapproval access to an investigational drug can be provided to a group of patients. Although an EAP is a regulated program, the decision to authorize an EAP is the responsibility of the biopharmaceutical sponsor. Because of the significant impact an EAP can have on current patients, drug development, and future patients, we propose that a sponsor’s decision must be based not only on regulatory criteria but also on ethical and practical considerations regarding implementation of an EAP. Such an approach will help ensure that decisions and plans uphold ethical precepts such as fairness, promoting good, and minimizing risk of harm.

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

Abstract 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

Abstract 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.

A Pharmaceutical Bioethics Consultation Service: Six-Year Descriptive Characteristics and Results of a Feedback Survey

Background: Bioethics consultations are conducted in varied settings, including hospitals, universities, and other research institutions, but there is sparse information about bioethics consultations conducted in corporate settings such as pharmaceutical companies. The purpose of this article is to describe a bioethics consultation service at a pharmaceutical company, to report characteristics of consultations completed by the service over a 6-year period, and to share results of a consultation feedback survey. Methods: Data on the descriptive characteristics of bioethics consultations were collected from 2008 to 2013 and analyzed in Excel 2007. Categorical data were analyzed via the pivot table function, and time-based variables were analyzed via formulas. The feedback survey was administered to consultation requesters from 2009 to 2012 and also analyzed in Excel 2007. Results: Over the 6-year period, 189 bioethics consultations were conducted. The number of consultations increased from five per year in 2008 to approximately one per week in 2013. During this time, the format of the consultation service was changed from a committee-only approach to a tiered approach (tailored to the needs of the case). The five most frequent topics were informed consent, early termination of a clinical trial, benefits and risks, human biological samples, and patient rights. The feedback survey results suggest the consultation service is well regarded overall and viewed as approachable, helpful, and responsive. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical bioethics consultation is a unique category of bioethics consultation that primarily focuses on pharmaceutical research and development but also touches on aspects of clinical ethics, business ethics, and organizational ethics. Results indicate there is a demand for a tiered bioethics consultation service within this pharmaceutical company and that advice was valued. This companys experience indicates that a bioethics consultation service raises awareness about bioethics, empowers employees to raise bioethical concerns, and helps them reason through challenging issues.