Stakeholders' views on the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs

Trials

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Kalkman, Shona ^a   van Thiel, Ghislaine J M W ^a   Grobbee, Diederick E ^a   Meinecke, Anna Katharina ^b   Zuidgeest, Mira G P ^a   van Delden, Johannes J M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b BAYER PHARMA AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Drug research; Pragmatic clinical trial; Qualitative study; Research ethics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL ETHICS; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; EQUIPOISE; ETHICS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERVIEW; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT SAFETY; PERSONNEL; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK FACTOR; STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

NEW DRUG;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; CONSENT FORMS; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; PATIENT SAFETY; PHYSICIAN'S ROLE; PRAGMATIC CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RISK FACTORS; STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION; THERAPEUTIC EQUIPOISE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84983359390     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1546-3     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?". Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82-93.
2. Califf RM, Zarin DA, Kramer JM, Sherman RE, Aberle LH, Tasneem A. Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2010. JAMA. 2012;307:1838-47.
3. Treweek S, Zwarenstein M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials. 2009;10:37.
4. Loudon K, Zwarenstein M, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Treweek S. Making clinical trials more relevant: improving and validating the PRECIS tool for matching trial design decisions to trial purpose. Trials. 2013;14:115.
5. Eapen ZJ, Lauer MS, Temple RJ. The imperative of overcoming barriers to the conduct of large, simple trials. JAMA. 2014;311(14):1397-8.
6. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290(12):1624-32.
7. Van Staa TP, Goldacre B, Gulliford M, Cassell J, Pirmohamed M, Taweel A, Delaney B, Smeeth L. Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ. 2012;344:e55.
8. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Whicher D, Fowler R, Zwarenstein M. The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials. 2012;9(4):436-46.
9. Platt R, Kass NE, McGraw D. Ethics, regulation, and comparative effectiveness research: time for a change. JAMA. 2014;311(15):1497-8.
10. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):499-505.
11. Grobbee DE, Hoes AW. Clinical Epidemiology: Principles, Methods and Applications for Clinical Research. 2nd ed. Burlington (MA), USA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2015.
12. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):464-75.
13. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Collaboratory. Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Pages/default.aspx/. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.
14. Ali J, Califf R, Sugarman J. Anticipated ethics and regulatory challenges in PCORnet: The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Account Res. 2016;23(2):79-96.
15. IMI GetReal. New methods for RWE collection and synthesis. https://www.imi-getreal.eu/. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.
16. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Adaptive pathways. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000601.jsp. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.
17. Califf RM, Sugarman J. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):436-41.
18. Sugarman J, Califf RM. Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA. 2014;311(23):2381-2.
19. McKinney Jr RE, Beskow LM, Ford DE, Lantos JD, McCall J, Patrick-Lake B, Pletcher MJ, Rath B, Schmidt H, Weinfurt K. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):494-502.
20. Welch MJ, Lally R, Miller JE, Pittman S, Brodsky L, Caplan AL, Uhlenbrauck G, Louzao DM, Fischer JH, Wilfond B. The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):503-10.
21. Kalkman S, van Thiel GJMW, Grobbee DE, van Delden JJM. Pragmatic randomized trials in drug development pose new ethical questions. Drug Discov Today. 2015;20(7):856-62.
22. Ali J, Andrews JE, Somkin CP, Rabinovich CE. Harms, benefits, and the nature of interventions in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):467-75.
23. Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2013.
24. New JP, Bakerly ND, Leather D, Woodcock A. Obtaining real-world evidence: the Salford Lung Study. Thorax. 2014;69(12):1152-4.
25. Guest G, Brunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18:59-82.
26. Boeije H. Analysis in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.; 2012.
27. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-57.
28. SUPPORT Study Group of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Neonatal Research Network, Carlo WA, Finer NN, Walsh MC, Rich W, Gantz MG, Laptook AR, Yoder BA, Faix RG, Das A, Poole WK, Schibler K, Newman NS, Ambalavanan N, Frantz 3rd ID, Piazza AJ, Sánchez PJ, Morris BH, Laroia N, Phelps DL, Poindexter BB, Cotten CM, Van Meurs KP, Duara S, Narendran V, Sood BG, O'Shea TM, Bell EF, Ehrenkranz RA, Watterberg KL, Higgins RD. Target ranges of oxygen saturation in extremely preterm infants. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(21):1959-69.
29. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:141-5.
30. Dawson L, Zarin DA, Emanuel EJ, Friedman LM, Chaudhari B, Goodman SN. Considering usual medical care in clinical trial design. PLoS Med. 2009;6(9):e1000111.
31. Kass NE, Faden RR, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hastings Cent Rep. 2013;Spec No:S4-15.
32. Wendler D. "Targeted" consent for pragmatic clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(5):679-82.
33. Shaw D. HEAT-PPCI sheds light on consent in pragmatic trials. Lancet. 2014;384(9957):1826-7.
34. Kim SY, Miller FG. Informed consent for pragmatic trials-the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(8):769-72.
35. Whicher D, Kass N, Faden R. Stakeholders' views of alternatives to prospective informed consent for minimal-risk pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials. J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43(2):397-409.
36. Faden R, Kass N, Whicher D, Stewart W, Tunis S. Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Med Care. 2013;51(8 Suppl 3):S53-7.