How should we regulate risk in biomedical research? An ethical analysis of recent policy proposals and initiatives

Health Policy

Volumn 117, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 409-420

  Rid, Annette ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Comparative policy analysis; Ethical review; Informed consent; Research ethics; Research drug regulation; Risk; Risk adapted regulation; Safety monitoring; Subject protection

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; EUROPE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MONITORING; POLICY; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; UNITED STATES; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT SAFETY; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; EUROPE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT SAFETY; POLICY; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84908159546     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: 18726054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.011     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Silberman G., Kahn K.L. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Quarterly 2011, 89(4):599-627.
2. Stewart D.J., Whitney S.N., Kurzrock R. Equipoise lost: ethics, costs, and the regulation of cancer clinical research. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2010, 28(17):2925-2935.
3. van Teijlingen E.R., Douglas F., Torrance N. Clinical governance and research ethics as barriers to UK low-risk population-based health research?. BMC Public Health 2008, 8:p396.
4. Infectious Diseases Society of America Grinding to a halt: the effects of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality improvement efforts. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2009, 49(3):328-335.
5. Fost N., Levine R.J. The dysregulation of human subjects research. Journal of American Medical Association 2007, 298(18):2196-2198.
6. Kim S., Ubel P., De Vries R. Pruning the regulatory tree. Nature 2009, 457(7229):534-535.
7. European Commission and Health and Consumers Directorate-General.Revison of the 'Clinical Trials Directive' 2001/20/EC Concept Paper Submitted for Public Consultation, Brussels 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/clinicaltrials/concept_paper_02-2011.pdf [accessed 15.04.14].
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). U.S. Code for Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46; revised 1991.
9. U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, and Food and Drug Administration (DHHS/OS & FDA) Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators (Advance notice of proposed rulemaking). Billing Code: 4150-28 2011, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-26/html/2011-18792.htm [accessed 15.04.14].
10. Emanuel E.J., Wendler D., Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical?. Journal of American Medical Association 2000, 283(20):2701-2711.
11. Slovic P. The perception of risk 2010, Earthscan Publications, London.
12. U.S.National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research 1979, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html [accessed 15.04.14].
13. European Parliament and Council of the European Union Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human us. Official Journal of the European Communities 2001, L121:34-44.
14. European Commission (EC) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC (Brussels, 17.7.2012) 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/clinicaltrials/2012_07/proposal/2012_07_proposal_en.pdf [accessed 15.04.14].
15. European Science Foundation (ESF) Forward look. Investigator-driven clinical trials 2009, http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/IDCT.pdf [accessed 15.04.14].
16. European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN), and on behalf of the "Roadmap Initiative for Clinical Research in Europe" Multidisciplinary Workshop on Risk Based Approach in Clinical Trials. Meeting Report 2010, http://www.ecrin.org/fileadmin/user_upload/public_documents/News/Activities/Report Roadmap Workshop on Risk-based regulation Barceona 18 Jan 2010-1.pdf [accessed 15.04.14].
17. OECD Global Science Forum (OECD) Facilitating International Cooperation in Non-Commercial Clinical Trials (October 2011) 2011, http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/49344626.pdf [accessed 15.04.14].
18. U.K.National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Proportionate Review Review Service 2011, http://www.nres.nhs.uk/applications/proportionate-review/ [accessed 15.04.14].
19. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Reflection paper on risk based quality management of clinical trials (4 August 2011) 2011, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2011/08/WC500110059.pdf [accessed 15.04.14].
20. U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (DHSS/FDA) Guidance for Industry: Oversight of Clinical Investigations - A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring (August 2013) 2013, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/../Guidances/UCM269919.pdf [accessed 15.04.14].
21. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 21 CFR parts 50, 56 and 31; revised 2013.
22. Black J. The role of risk in regulatory processes. Oxford handbook of regulation 2010, 302-349. Oxford University Press, Oxford. R. Baldwin, M. Cave, M. Lodge (Eds.).
23. Rid A., Wender D. A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2011, 21(2):141-179.
24. U.K.Medical Research Council U.K. Department of Health, and U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MRC/DH/MHRA). MRC/DH/MHRA Joint Project: Risk-adapted Approaches to the Management of Clincial Trials of Investigational Products (Version: 10th October 2011) 2011, http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/l-ctu/documents/websiteresources/con111784.pdf [accessed 15.04.14].
25. Hunter D. Proportional ethical review and the identification of ethical issues. Journal of Medical Ethics 2007, 33(4):241-245.
26. Hunter D. Efficiency and the proposed reforms to the NHS research ethics system. Journal of Medical Ethics 2007, 33(11):651-654.
27. Klitzman R., Appelbaum P.S. Research ethics. To protect human subjects, review what was done, not proposed. Science 2012, 335(6076):1576-1577.
28. Rid A. Risk and risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Handbook of risk theory 2012, 179-211. Springer, Dordrecht. S. Roeser (Ed.).
29. Shah S., Whittle A., Wilfond B., Gensler G., Wendler D. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?. Journal of American Medical Association 2004, 291(4):476-482.
30. Miller F.G., Wendler D., Swartzman L.C. Deception in research on the placebo effect. PLoS Medicine 2005, 2(9):pe262.
31. Rid A., Wendler D. A proposal and prototype for a research risk repository to improve the protection of research participants. Clinical Trials 2011, 8(6):705-715.
32. Casarett D., Karlawish J.H., Sugarman J. Should patients in quality-improvement activities have the same protections as participants in research studies?. Journal of American Medical Association 2000, 284(14):1786-1788.
33. Largent E.A., Joffe S., Miller F.G. Can research and care be ethically integrated?. The Hastings Center Report 2011, 41(4):37-46.
34. Faden R.R., Kass N.E., Goodman S.N., Pronovost P., Tunis S., Beauchamp T.L. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. The Hastings Center Report 2013, S16-S27.
35. Riaz K., Forker A.D. Digoxin use in congestive heart failure. Current status. Drugs 1998, 55(6):747-758.
36. Lin J.H., Lu A.Y. Inhibition and induction of cytochrome P450 and the clinical implications. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 1998, 35(5):361-390.
37. Henderson-Smart D.J., De Paoli A.G. Methylxanthine treatment for apnoea in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, (12):CD000140.
38. Preston C.C., Colman A.M. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica 2000, 104:1-15.
39. Rhodes R., Azzouni J., Baumrin S.B., Benkov K., Blaser M.J., Brenner B., Dauben J.W., Earle W.J., Frank L., Gligorov N., Goldfarb J., Hirschhorn K., Hirschhorn R., Holzman I., Indyk D., Jabs E.W., Lackey D.P., Moros D.A., Philpott S., Rhodes M.E., Richardson L.D., Sacks H.S., Schwab A., Sperling R., Trusko B., Zweig A. De minimis risk: a proposal for a new category of research risk. American Journal of Bioethics 2011, 11(11):1-7.
40. Sugarman J., Getz K., Speckman J.L., Byrne M.M., Gerson J., Emanuel E.J. The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers. New England Journal of Medicine 2005, 352(17):1825-1827.
41. Emanuel E.J., Miller F.G. Money and distorted ethical judgments about research: ethical assessment of the TeGenero TGN1412 trial. American Journal of Bioethics 2007, 7(2):76-81.
42. Miller F.G., Joffe S. Limits to research risks. Journal of Medical Ethics 2009, 35(7):445-449.
43. Resnik D.B., Koski G. A national registry for healthy volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials. Journal of American Medical Association 2011, 305(12):1236-1237.