The social value of pragmatic trials

Bioethics

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 136-143

  Kalkman, Shona ^a   Van Thiel, Ghislaine ^a   Van Der Graaf, Rieke ^a   Zuidgeest, Mira ^a   Goetz, Iris ^b   Grobbee, Diederick ^a   Van Delden, Johannes ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b Global Health Outcomes Department of Eli Lilly   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Pragmatic trials; Real world evidence; Research ethics; Social value

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; PROBABILITY; RESEARCH ETHICS; STUDY DESIGN; INFORMED CONSENT; METHODOLOGY; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOCIAL VALUES;

EID: 85009062583     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12315     Document Type: Note

References (51)

1. R.M. Califf & J. Sugarman. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials 2015; 12(5): 436–41.
2. M. Calvert, J. Wood & N. Freemantle. Designing “Real-World” trials to meet the needs of health policy makers at marketing authorization. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(7): 711–7.
3. D. Wendler. “Targeted” consent for pragmatic clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30(5): 679–82.
4. R.E. McKinney Jr, L.M. Beskow, D.E. Ford, J.D. Lantos, J. McCall, B. Patrick-Lake, M.J. Pletcher, B. Rath, H. Schmidt & K. Weinfurt. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials 2015; 12(5): 494–502
5. T.P. van Staa, B. Goldacre, M. Gulliford, J. Cassell, M. Pirmohamed, A. Taweel, B. Delaney & L. Smeeth. Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ 2012; 344: e55.
6. R.R. Faden, T.L. Beauchamp & N.E. Kass. Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. N Engl J Med 2014; 370(8): 766–8.
7. T.P. van Staa, L. Dyson, G. McCann, S. Padmanabhan, R. Belatri, B. Goldacre, J. Cassell, M. Pirmohamed, D. Torgerson, S. Ronaldson, J. Adamson, A. Taweel, B. Delaney, S. Mahmood, S. Baracaia, T. Round, R. Fox, T. Hunter, M. Gulliford & L. Smeeth. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trjials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess 2014; 18(43): 1–146.
8. S.Y. Kim & F.G. Miller. Informed consent for pragmatic trials–the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med 2014; 370(8): 769–72.
9. L. Gelinas, A. Wertheimer & F.G. Miller. When and Why Is Research without Consent Permissible? Hastings Cent Rep 2016; 46(2): 35–43.
10. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). 2012 (draft revision 2015). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research involving Human Subjects. Geneva, Switzerland: CIOMS. Available at: http://www.cioms.ch/final_draft_CIOMS_guidelines-10_september_2015-WITH_WATERMARKS.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug 2016].
11. We will use the term ‘patients’ as a shorthand for ‘patientparticipants ‘ as it highlights that deviations from research ethics regulations have normative consequences not only for individuals’ rights as research participants but also for individuals’ rights as patients.
12. D. Schwartz & J. Lellouch. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62(5): 499–505.
13. K.E. Thorpe, M. Zwarenstein, A.D. Oxman, S. Treweek, C.D. Furberg, D.G. Altman, S. Tunis, E. Bergel, I. Harvey, D.J. Magid & K. Chalkidou. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62(5): 464–75.
14. H.G. Eichler, E. Abadie, A. Breckenridge, B. Flamion, L.L. Gustafsson, H. Leufkens, M. Rowland, C.K. Schneider & B. Bloechl-Daum. Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator_s perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011; 10(7): 495–506.
15. S. Treweek & M. Zwarenstein. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials 2009; 10: 37
16. K. Loudon, M. Zwarenstein, F. Sullivan, P. Donnan& S. Treweek. Making clinical trials more relevant: improving and validating the PRECIS tool for matching trial design decisions to trial purpose. Trials 2013; 14: 115
17. S.R. Tunis, D.B. Stryer & C.M. Clancy. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290(12): 1624–32
18. K. Chalkidou, S. Tunis, D. Whicher, R. Fowler & M. Zwarenstein. The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials 2012; 9(4): 436–46.
19. D. Schwarz & J. Lellouch, op. cit. note 11.
20. K.E. Thorpe et al., op. cit. note 12.
21. K. Loudon, S. Treweek, F. Sullivan, P. Donnan, K.E. Thorpe & M. Zwarenstein. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ 2015; 350: h2147.
22. N. Patsopoulos. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2011; 13(2): 217–24.
23. D. Schwarz & J. Lellouch, op. cit. note 11.
24. S.Y. Kim & F.G. Miller. Varieties of standard-of-care treatment randomized trials: ethical implications. JAMA 2015; 313(9): 895–6.
25. A. Woodcock, N.D. Bakerly, J.P. New, J.M. Gibson, W. Wu, J. Vestbo & D. Leather. The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in asthma. BMC Pulm Med 2015; 15: 160.
26. H.G. Eichler, B. Bloechl-Daum, E. Abadie, D. Barnett, F. König & S. Pearson. Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010; 9(4): 277–91.
27. J.P. New, N.D. Bakerly, D. Leather & A. Woodcock. Obtaining realworld evidence: the Salford Lung Study. Thorax 2014; 69(12): 1152–4.
28. The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Topic E6 (R1) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95). Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002874.pdf [Accessed 25Aug 2016].
29. J. Sugarman & R.M. Califf. Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA 2014; 311(23): 2381–2
30. M.J. Pletcher, B. Lo & D. Grady. Informed consent in randomized quality improvement trials: a critical barrier for learning health systems. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174(5): 668–70;D.Wendler, op. cit. note 3.
31. R.E. McKinney Jr et al., op. cit. note 4; L. Gelinas et al., op. cit. note 8.
32. R.D. Truog, W. Robinson, A. Randolph & A. Morris. Is informed consent always necessary for randomized, controlled trials? N Engl J Med 1999; 340(10): 804–7.
33. R.R. Faden, N.E. Kass, S.N. Goodman, P. Pronovost, S. Tunis & T.L. Beauchamp. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; Spec No: S16–27.
34. N.E. Kass, R.R Faden, S.N. Goodman, P. Pronovost, S. Tunis & T.L. Beauchamp. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; Spec No: S4–S15.
35. R.R. Faden et al., op. cit. note 5.
36. R.R. Faden, N.E. Kass, D. Whicher, W. Stewart & S. Tunis. Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Med Care 2013; 51(8 Suppl 3): S53–7.
37. S.Y. Kim & F.G. Miller, op. cit. note 7.
38. Wendler D. What should be disclosed to research participants? Am J Bioeth 2013; 13(12): 3–8;
39. R. Spellecy, S. Leuthner & M. Farrell. Risk, respect for persons, and informed consent in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Bioeth 2013; 13(12): 46–8.
40. R.R. Faden et al., op. cit. note 5; L. Gelinas et al., op. cit. note 8
41. S.Y. Kim & F.G. Miller. Waivers and Alterations to Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Respecting the Principle of Respect for Persons. IRB 2016;38(1):1–5.
42. K. Borgerson. Are explanatory trials ethical? Shifting the burden of justification in clinical trial design. Theor Med Bioeth 2013; 34(4): 293–308.
43. D. Motola, F. De Ponti, P. Rossi, N. Martini & N. Montanaro. Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 59(4): 475–8.
44. J.M. Hoebert, R.A. Vonk, C.W. van der Laar, I. Hegger, M. Weda & S.W. Janssen. 2014. Minds Open - Sustainability of the European regulatory system for medicinal products. 2014. Utrecht, the Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM Report 2014–0033). Available at: http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid5rivmp:262119&type5org&disposition5inline [Accessed 25 Aug 2016].
45. L. Dawson, D.A. Zarin, E.J. Emanuel, L.M. Friedman, B. Chaudhari & S.N. Goodman. Considering usual medical care in clinical trial design. PLoS Med 2009; 6(9): e1000111.
46. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), op. cit. note 9.
47. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), op. cit. note 9.
48. R.D. Truog et al., op. cit. note 27.
49. S.C. Chen & S.Y. Kim. A framework for analysis of research risks and benefits to participants in standard of care pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials 2016 Jun 30. pii: 1740774516656945. [Epub ahead of print]
50. S.Y. Kim & F.G. Miller, op. cit. note 34.
51. M.G. Habets, J.J. van Delden & A.L. Bredenoord. The social value of clinical research. BMC Med Ethics 2014; 15: 66.