Ethical Research Issues: Going Beyond the Declaration of Helsinki

La Vaque and Rossiter made a strong, supported argument that it is unethical to use a no treatment control group in a research study if a known, effective treatment is available. Their argument is based on the supposition that the Declaration of Helsinki is the ethical world standard for research with humans. Their argument appears to be straightforward, but is not simple to apply. The issues are very complex, include issues not discussed in their argument, and can lead to a different conclusion as pointed out in this paper. The World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Helsinki as one of their official policies. The Declaration of Helsinki, however, is not accepted as the world ethical standard, as demonstrated by its lack of adoption by many professional associations or even by the United States Federal Government. Perhaps it is not mentioned because its ethical provisions are aspirational rather than mandatory as implied by La Vaque and Rossiter. Researchers and clinicians should also be aware of other ethical issues not directly discussed in the La Vaque and Rossiter paper. The Belmont Report is the basis for the ethical protection of human research subjects for at least 17 federal agencies and does not mention the Declaration of Helsinki. The Belmont Report mentions several ethical principles that form the basis for informed consent, risk/benefit assessment, confidentiality of data, subject selection, Institutional Review Boards, and other protections needed when doing research with human subjects. At least 2 of these core principles have direct implications to the discussion related to the use of placebo controls. The ethical principle of fidelity is also important in guiding research activities with human subjects. Researchers should be familiar with the La Vaque and Rossiter argument, the Belmont Report, and the federal policies developed to implement the provisions of that report, for example, Regulation 45 CFR 46.     

The Ethical Use of Placebo Controls in Clinical Research: The Declaration of Helsinki

Medical ethicists have questioned the use of no-treatment (placebo and sham procedure) controlled studies of new therapies when safe and effective standard therapies are available for use as an active or equivalence control. Current ethical principles of conduct for biomedical research specifically prohibit designs that withhold or deny the best proven diagnostic and therapeutic treatment to any participant in a clinical study, including those individuals who consent to randomization into a control group. Studies of psychophysiological therapies are often criticized on the grounds they lack a placebo or sham treatment control group. This paper briefly reviews the history of the problem and discusses the ethical standards that govern human research as derived from the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki. An examination of the problem with regard to research involving EEG biofeedback therapy for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injury, and depression serves to highlight the issues. It is concluded that the active treatment control (treatment equivalence) design is most appropriate for those clinical studies examining disorders for which there is a known, effective treatment. Sham- or placebo-controlled studies are ethically acceptable for those disorders for which no effective treatment is available.     

Is It Always Unethical to Use a Placebo in a Clinical Trial?

Background to the debate: Placebos are used in trials to conceal whether a treatment is being given or not and hence to control for the psychosomatic effects of offering treatment. Placebo-controlled trials are controversial. Critics of such trials argue that if a proven effective therapy exists, a placebo should not be used. But proponents argue that placebo trials are still crucial to prove the efficacy and safety of many treatments.     

Realizing benefit sharing - the case of post-study obligations

In 2006, the Indonesian government decided to withhold avian flu samples from the World Health Organization. They argued that even though Indonesian samples were crucial to the development of vaccines, the results of vaccine research would be unaffordable for its citizens. Commentaries on the case varied from alleging blackmail to welcoming this strong stance against alleged exploitation. What is clear is that the concern expressed is related to benefit sharing. Benefit sharing requires resource users to return benefits to resource providers in order to achieve justice. One benefit sharing tool within health research is the duty to provide a health care intervention which has been proven to be beneficial (or alternative benefits) to research participants after a study has been concluded. This duty is generally known as a post-study obligation. It was enshrined in the Declaration of Helsinki in 2000 and re-emphasized in 2008. Yet, there are few, if any, examples of good practice. In this article, we analyse the obstacles to giving more bite to benefit sharing provisions in health research through ethical review. We conclude that the provision of post-study access to healthcare interventions is not a promising mechanism when monitored through research ethics committees. Alternative benefit provision is preferable if one focuses on achieving compliance. However, even the latter faces challenges, which we address in specific recommendations.     

Circumcising human subjects: An evaluation of experimental foreskin amputation using the Declaration of Helsinki

This paper explores ethical considerations for active studies of circumcision, i.e., the amputation of the foreskin, in the form of a case study of three major trials performed in African countries in the early 2000s. The paper outlines the function of the foreskin and method and history of its amputation as well as its current use in attempting to combat the global AIDS crisis. These trials are then interrogated in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. In particular, the irreversible nature of amputation is given great consideration. The case studies are found to have serious failures in terms of the modern iteration of the Declaration of Helsinki. This paper calls for extreme scrutiny in accordance with international norms relating to the ethical treatment of human subjects in a research context of studies of circumcision if and when they are proposed again.     

Illegitimate authorship and flawed procedures: Fundamental,formal criticisms of the Declaration of Helsinki

Some of the recent criticisms published during and after the last revision process of the Declaration of Helsinki are directed at its basic legitimacy. In this article we want to have a closer look at the two criticisms we consider to be the most fundamental. The first criticism questions the legitimate authorship of the World Medical Association to publish a document such as the Declaration. The second fundamental criticism we want to examine argues that the last revision process failed to meet the standards for fair, democratic procedures. Although both criticisms deny the formal legitimacy of the Declaration in the most fundamental way, they have never been addressed in detail in a single article. We refute most of the related arguments. However, acknowledging some of the points made, improvements for future revision processes and versions of the Declaration of Helsinki are outlined.     

Post‐trial obligations in the Declaration of Helsinki 2013: classification,reconstruction and interpretation

The general aim of this article is to give a critical interpretation of post‐trial obligations towards individual research participants in the Declaration of Helsinki 2013. Transitioning research participants to the appropriate health care when a research study ends is a global problem. The publication of a new version of the Declaration of Helsinki is a great opportunity to discuss it. In my view, the Declaration of Helsinki 2013 identifies at least two clearly different types of post‐trial obligations, specifically, access to care after research and access to information after research. The agents entitled to receive post‐trial access are the individual participants in research studies. The Declaration identifies the sponsors, researchers and host country governments as the main agents responsible for complying with the post‐trial obligations mentioned above. To justify this interpretation of post‐trial obligations, I first introduce a classification of post‐trial obligations and illustrate its application with examples from post‐trial ethics literature. I then make a brief reconstruction of the formulations of post‐trial obligations of the Declaration of Helsinki from 2000 to 2008 to correlate the changes with some of the most salient ethical arguments. Finally I advance a critical interpretation of the latest formulation of post‐trial obligations. I defend the view that paragraph 34 of ‘Post‐trial provisions’ is an improved formulation by comparison with earlier versions, especially for identifying responsible agents and abandoning ambiguous ‘fair benefit’ language. However, I criticize the disappearance of ‘access to other appropriate care’ present in the Declaration since 2004 and the narrow scope given to obligations of access to information after research.     

European regulatory conundrum of phage therapy.

The treatment of infectious diseases with antibiotics is becoming increasingly challenging. Very few new antimicrobials are in the pharmaceutical industry pipeline. One of the potential alternatives for antibiotics is phage therapy. Major obstacles for the clinical application of bacteriophages are a false perception of viruses as 'enemies of life' and the lack of a specific frame for phage therapy in the current Medicinal Product Regulation. Short-term borderline solutions under the responsibility of a Medical Ethical Committee and/or under the umbrella of the Declaration of Helsinki are emerging. As a long-term solution, however, we suggest the creation of a specific section for phage therapy under the Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product Regulation.     

Randomised Placebo-controlled trials and HIV-infected Pregnant Women in Developing Countries. Ethical Imperialism or Unethical Exploitation

The maternal-fetal HIV transmission trials, conducted in developing countries in the 1990s, undoubtedly generated one of the most intense, high profile controversies in international research ethics. They sparked off a prolonged acrimonious and public debate and deeply divided the scientific community. They also provided an impetus for the revision of the Declaration of Helsinki – the most widely known guideline for international research. In this paper, I provide a brief summary of the context, outline the arguments for and against the controversial use of placebo controls, and focus on particular areas that I believe merit further discussion or clarification. On balance, I argue that the researchers failed in their duties to protect the best interests of their research subjects, and to promote distributive justice. I discuss the difficulties of obtaining valid consent in this research context, and argue that it is unethical to inform women of their HIV status without at least offering them prophylactic treatment for their unborn children. A global view of justice, which endorses international equity, cannot be squared with international research guidelines that allow 'local conditions' to define the scope of duty to the control group. Finally, I suggest that the heated debate reflects a tension, if not an outright war, between two conflicting meta-ethical systems, or incommensurable paradigms, that underpin scientific research involving human subjects.     

Informed consent: study of quality of information given to participants in a clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether the participants in a clinical trial had perceived adequate information about the trial according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. DESIGN--About 18 months after the end of a gynaecological clinical trial the participants received a questionnaire by post, which focused on the quality of the information given to them before entering the trial. Neither researchers nor participants were aware in advance that the trial would become the subject of this follow up investigation. SETTING--Eight different centres in Sweden. SUBJECTS--43 women out of the 53 who completed the trial (mean (range) age 23 (16 to 35) years) returned the questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Adequacy of the information (based on requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki) to enable the following: understanding of the aims of the study; awareness of what participation meant; and awareness of the possibility of withdrawing from participation at any time. Motives for agreeing to participate, and a subjective evaluation of the given information were also recorded. RESULTS--All but one of the participants had been aware that they were taking part in a research project. Five women stated that they had not been aware that a second laparoscopy was performed only for research reasons. Seven women reported that they had not been aware of the meaning of participating in the project and 17 that they had had no information about the possibility of withdrawing from the study whenever they wanted. In the subjective rating 22 women considered the information given as good or very good. There was a systematic variation in the quality of the given information among the eight centres. CONCLUSION--Although all but one of the participants had been aware that they were taking part in a clinical trial, the quality of the information understood and recalled by participants varied, and in many cases clearly did not meet the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Variations among centres in participants'' perception of information suggest that deficiencies in perception may be caused by informers rather than the participants.     

Sensitivity analyses comparing time-to-event outcomes only existing in a subset selected postrandomization and relaxing monotonicity

In randomized studies researchers may be interested in the effect of treatment assignment on a time-to-event outcome that only exists in a subset selected after randomization. For example, in preventative HIV vaccine trials, it is of interest to determine whether randomization to vaccine affects the time from infection diagnosis until initiation of antiretroviral therapy. Earlier work assessed the effect of treatment on outcome among the principal stratum of individuals who would have been selected regardless of treatment assignment. These studies assumed monotonicity, that one of the principal strata was empty (e.g., every person infected in the vaccine arm would have been infected if randomized to placebo). Here, we present a sensitivity analysis approach for relaxing monotonicity with a time-to-event outcome. We also consider scenarios where selection is unknown for some subjects because of noninformative censoring (e.g., infection status k years after randomization is unknown for some because of staggered study entry). We illustrate our method using data from an HIV vaccine trial.     

Research ethics and the use of placebo: status of the debate in Canada

The question of the use of the placebo is one of the most controversial in the field of the ethics of research today. The use of the placebo remains the standard practice of biomedical research in spite of the fact that various revisions of the Helsinki Declaration have sought to limit its use. In Canada, the Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans adopted a very restrictive position with respect to the use of placebos, precisely defining the situations in which its use would meet the demands of ethical research. The positions taken by the various ethical decision-making bodies are, however, hardly shared by regulatory bodies such as the Food and drug administration (FDA), the Council for international organization of medical sciences (CIOMS) or the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products (EMEA). This divergence of opinions reveals two quite different conceptions of what constitutes the ethical. In the case of decision-making bodies in the ethical field, it is clearly medicine's Hippocratic Oath which explains their reluctance to use placebos. The first responsibility of the doctor is to "do no harm" to his or her patient. This duty is inherent to the medical profession and as such is not grounded in the view of medicine as a contract for care. In the case of regulatory bodies, it is the vision of "medicine as contract" which is in view; and it is this notion that justifies the use of placebos once free and informed consent has been obtained. It is also worth noting that these regulatory bodies make frequent use of arguments based on utilitarian ends. In an unprecedented move, the World medical association published in October 2001 a clarification note about the use of placebos. An analysis of this text raises the question about its real meaning: clarification or concession?     

Understanding the placebo effect from an evolutionary perspective

A placebo is a treatment which is not effective through its direct action on the body, but works because of its effect on the patient's beliefs. From an evolutionary perspective, it is initially puzzling why, if people are capable of recovering, they need a placebo to do so. Based on an argument put forward by Humphrey [Great expectations: the evolutionary psychology of faith-healing and the placebo effect. In: Humphrey, N (2002). The mind made flesh. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 255–285], we present simple mathematical models of the placebo effect that involve a trade-off between the costs and benefits of allocating resources to a current problem. These models show why the effect occurs and how its magnitude and timing can depend on different factors. We identify a particular aspect of belief which may govern the effect and conclude that a deeper understanding of why the placebo effect exists may allow it to be invoked more easily in the future.     

Baseline Predictors of Success When Comparing Two Treatments

Since few medications are equally effective in all patients, physicians can maximize the risk/benefit ratio of therapy for their patients by limiting exposure based on baseline predictors of success. Traditional procedures typically evaluate the response of patients receiving the same treatment regimen without evaluating a comparator. However, when treatments are compared, such as in clinical trials, traditional procedures of identifying predictors must be modified to analyze the treatment effect on the primary outcome variable. We focus on clinical and statistical considerations that arise when developing baseline predictors through models which consider treatment differences. To illustrate an application of this method, we used data from 1,026 patients completing at least 6 months of double-blind therapy in clinical trials comparing fluoxetine (N=522) with placebo (N=504) for weight loss. Stepwise regression procedures were used to identify baseline variables which were predictive of a beneficial fluoxetine treatment effect on last-visit-carried-forward (LVCF) weight change. In this example, age, smoking activity, and uric acid concentration were the best baseline predictors of long-term treatment effect relative to LVCF weight change. Patients were more likely to achieve long-term benefit with fluoxetine if they were older, and/or were nonsmokers, and/or had high concentrations of uric acid at baseline. These predictors, developed through models keying on treatment effect, can be used to identify patients who are more likely to accrue benefits with active therapy beyond those expected with placebo therapy, thus enriching the treatment population so that a higher proportion of treated patients are successful.     

Effects of gemfibrozil treatment on serum levels of androstanediol glucuronide and adrenal androgens.

We have prospectively investigated the role of adrenal cortical androgens as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in the Helsinki Heart Study population. Simultaneously we studied the effects of gemfibrozil treatment on the serum levels of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), its sulfate (DHEAS), and their metabolite androstanediol glucuronide (3 alpha AdiolG) with those of placebo. Gemfibrozil (n = 133) vs placebo (n = 159) treatment was associated with significant elevation of mean (SD) DHEAS (mumol/l) 8.35 (5.31) vs 6.98 (3.85); P less than 0.02, and of 3 alpha AdiolG (nmol/l) 17.45 (7.57) vs 8.62 (3.56); P less than 0.001), and of almost significant elevation of DHEA (nmol/l) 10.12 (6.64) vs 8.78 (5.86); P less than 0.07). These new observations suggest that gemfibrozil treatment increases the production and turnover of DHEA and DHEAS and may in addition stimulate the 5 alpha-reduction of androgens.     

Nortriptyline plus nicotine replacement versus placebo plus nicotine replacement for smoking cessation: pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Objective To test the efficacy of nortriptyline plus nicotine replacement therapy compared with placebo plus nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation.Design Pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Setting National Health Service stop smoking service clinics.Participants 901 people trying to stop smoking.Interventions Participants chose their nicotine replacement product, including combinations of nicotine replacement therapy, and received behavioural support. Nortriptyline was started one to two weeks before quit day, with the dose increased from 25 mg to 75 mg daily for eight weeks and reduced if not tolerated.Main outcome measures Primary outcome was prolonged confirmed abstinence at six months. Secondary outcomes were prolonged abstinence at 12 months, drug use, severity of side effects, nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and urges to smoke.Results 72 of 445 (16%) people using nortriptyline and 55 of 456 (12%) using placebo achieved prolonged abstinence at six months (relative risk 1.34, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.86). At 12 months the corresponding values were 49 (11%) for nortriptyline and 40 (9%) for placebo (1.26, 0.84 to 1.87). 337 (79%) people in the nortriptyline arm and 325 (75%) in the placebo arm were taking combination treatment on quit day, median 75 mg per day in both groups. More people in the nortriptyline arm than in the placebo arm took lower doses. The nortriptyline arm had noticeably higher severity ratings for dry mouth and constipation than the placebo arm, with slightly higher ratings for sweating and feeling shaky. Both groups had similar urges to smoke, but nortriptyline reduced depression and anxiety. Overall, withdrawal symptom scores did not differ.Conclusions Nortriptyline and nicotine replacement therapy are both effective for smoking cessation but the effect of the combination is less than either alone and evidence is lacking that combination treatment is more effective than either alone.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN57852484.     

Ethical analysis of cadaver supply and usage processes for research within the scope of the Helsinki Declaration

Recent technological developments have considerably transformed the supply, storage, and transportation processes of cadavers, creating new and previously unforeseen ethical challenges regarding cadaver usage. In this study, we analyzed two aspects of the cadaver processing system—cadaver supply and its use in research. Thereafter, we highlighted the major ethical concerns underlying these stages and correlated our search results with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH), or Helsinki Declaration. To ensure the reliability and continuity of medical progress, human—especially cadaver—research depends on the ethical priorities as outlined in the DoH: respect for autonomy, privacy/confidentiality, risks/burdens/benefits, and the protection of vulnerable groups. According to our ethics analysis, which also corresponds with the ethics guidelines of the Consensus Panel on Research with the Recently Dead, the most ignored values were respect for autonomy and privacy/confidentiality issues. Based on these ethical concerns, we provide recommendations to address these challenges in anatomy research.