Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider

This paper is intended to stimulate debate amongst stakeholders in the international research community on the topic of returning individual genetic research results to study participants. Pharmacogenetics and disease genetics studies are becoming increasingly prevalent, leading to a growing body of information on genetic associations for drug responsiveness and disease susceptibility with the potential to improve health care. Much of these data are presently characterized as exploratory (non-validated or hypothesis-generating). There is, however, a trend for research participants to be permitted access to their personal data if they so choose. Researchers, sponsors, patient advocacy groups, ethics committees and regulatory authorities are consequently confronting the issue of whether, and how, study participants might receive their individual results. Noted international ethico-legal guidelines and public policy positions in Europe and the United States are reviewed for background. The authors offer 'Points-to-Consider' regarding returning results in the context of drug development trials based on their knowledge and experience. Theses considerations include: the clinical relevance of data, laboratory qualifications, informed consent procedures, confidentiality of medical information and the competency of persons providing results to participants. The discussion is framed as a benefit-to-risk assessment to balance the potential positive versus negative consequences to participants, while maintaining the integrity and feasibility of conducting genetic research studies.     

Consent for participating in clinical trials ‐ Is it really informed?

The article explores the challenges of ensuring voluntary and informed consent which is obtained from potential research subjects in the north‐eastern part of Romania. This study is one of the first empirical papers of this nature in Romania. The study used a quantitative survey design using the adapted Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC) questionnaire. The target population consisted of 100 adult persons who voluntarily enrolled in clinical trials. The informed consent form must contain details regarding the potential risks and benefits, the aim of the clinical trial, study design, confidentiality, insurance and contact details in case of additional questions. Our study confirmed that although all required information was included in the ICF, few clinical trial participants truly understood it. We also found that the most important predictive factor for a good subjective and objective understanding of the clinical trial was the level of education. Our study suggests that researchers should consider putting more effort in order to help clinical trials participants achieve a better understanding of the informed consent. In this way they will ensure that participants’ decision‐making is meaningful and that their interests are protected.     

Paradigms of expected failure

This study explores the outsourcing and offshoring of clinical trials and how they interconnect with the dynamics of drug development and regulation in the United States. I focus on the activities of United States-based contract research organizations, which make up a specialized global clinical trials industry focusing on the recruitment of human subjects and investigators. Tracking this industry’s activities in eastern Europe and Latin America, two clinical trial market ‘growth regions,’ I address the strategies of evidence-making that inform clinical trial offshoring. I also show how aspects of the clinical trial model—in which failures to predict safety outcomes or a paradigm of expected failure—are being exported along with the offshored trial. The clinical trials industry is a crucial, highly mobile, and profitable arm of the global pharmaceutical industry. Where state agencies furnish limited or no health care, drug developers claim that trial expansion and experiments have become social goods in themselves. But questions remain: How is drug value and research integrity maintained? And how do the results of clinical trials strengthen or undermine the delivery of affordable and effective interventions? As this essay shows, clinical trials are not only hypothesis-testing instruments; they are operative environments redistributing resources and occasioning tense medical and social fields. In highlighting the inefficiencies and uncertainties of global drug development, this study points to problems in the operational model of drug development and in systems of human protection. It also considers new forms of accountability at the nexus of private sector science and public health.     

Disclosure of genetic information obtained through research

The rapid expansion of information and knowledge of genetics has implications for the question of whether, and under what circumstances, information discovered in the course of genetic research should be conveyed to research participants and/or their relatives. The aim of this paper is to propose an ethically defensible solution to a specific case example illustrating this problem. To do this we reviewed the literature to find answers to the following three questions: (1) What do current regulations, guidelines, and commentary say about the disclosure of genetic risk information obtained through research to research participants? (2) What do current regulations, guidelines, and commentary say about the disclosure of genetic risk information obtained through research to the relatives of research subjects? and (3) What do current regulations, guidelines, and commentary say about the disclosure of genetic risk information obtained through research about former research participants who are now deceased? Our conclusion is that current U.S. federal guidelines governing the use of human subjects in research, as well as much of the current literature, do not adequately address the familial dimension inherent in genetic research, are virtually silent on the issue of sharing information of relevance to family members, and do not protect the deceased. It is our belief that this omission needs to be corrected and that explicit guidance on this issue needs to be provided to institutional review boards and researchers alike.     

BENEFITS TO RESEARCH SUBJECTS IN INTERNATIONAL TRIALS: DO THEY REDUCE EXPLOITATION OR INCREASE UNDUE INDUCEMENT?

There is an alleged tension between undue inducement and exploitation in research trials. This paper considers claims that increasing the benefits to research subjects enrolled in international, externally‐sponsored clinical trials should be avoided on the grounds that it may result in the undue inducement of research subjects. It proceeds from the premise that there are good grounds for thinking that, at least some, international research sponsors exploit trial participants because they do not provide the research population with a fair share of the benefits of research. This provides a prima facie argument for increasing the benefits for research participants. Concern over undue inducement is a legitimate moral concern; however, if this concern is to prevent research populations from receiving their fair share of benefits from research there must be sufficient evidence that these benefits will unduly influence patients’ decision‐making regarding trial participation. This article contributes to the debate about exploitation versus undue inducement by introducing an analysis of the available empirical research into research participants’ motivations and the influence of payments on research subjects’ behaviour and risk assessment. Admittedly, the available research in this field is limited, but the research that has been conducted suggests that financial rewards do not distort research subjects’ behaviour or blind them to the risks involved with research. Therefore, I conclude that research sponsors should prioritise the prevention of exploitation in international research by providing greater benefits to research participants.     

Information that should be given to HIV cohort participants during ongoing research: the viewpoints of patient representatives and research professionals

While investigators have a duty to provide research participants with summary findings at the end of a study, providing general information during the course of research is rarely considered. However, this raises an important ethical issue in the context of long-term studies such as cohorts or biobanks. We investigated this issue in the context of two ANRS cohorts of HIV-infected patients, AQUITAINE and COPILOTE. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with HIV patient representatives and research professionals concerning the delivery of information in the course of the research. Respondents stated that participants wish to be informed of research results (both aggregate and individual) but also expect general information about the cohort itself, research progression, and what their participation may provide. It was concluded that information provided during the course of the research may help participants to distinguish between care and research. The essential role of clinicians-investigators in providing information was emphasized.     

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Data from the U.S. Clinical Trials Database Reveals Poor Translational Clinical Trial Effort for Traumatic Brain Injury,Compared with Stroke

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important public health problem, comparable to stroke in incidence and prevalence. Few interventions have proven efficacy in TBI, and clinical trials are, therefore, necessary to advance management in TBI. We describe the current clinical trial landscape in traumatic brain injury and compare it with the trial efforts for stroke. For this, we analysed all stroke and TBI studies registered on the US Clinical Trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov) database over a 10-year period (01/01/2000 to 01/31/2013). This methodology has been previously used to analyse clinical trial efforts in other specialties. We describe the research profile in each area: total number of studies, total number of participants and change in number of research studies over time. We also analysed key study characteristics, such as enrolment number and scope of recruitment. We found a mismatch between relative public health burden and relative research effort in each disease. Despite TBI having comparable prevalence and higher incidence than stroke, it has around one fifth of the number of clinical trials and participant recruitment. Both stroke and TBI have experienced an increase in the number of studies over the examined time period, but the rate of growth for TBI is one third that for stroke. Small-scale (<1000 participants per trial) and single centre studies form the majority of clinical trials in both stroke and TBI, with TBI having significantly fewer studies with international recruitment. We discuss the consequences of these findings and how the situation might be improved. A sustained research effort, entailing increased international collaboration and rethinking the methodology of running clinical trials, is required in order to improve outcomes after traumatic brain injury.     

Evaluating the frequency of English language requirements in clinical trial eligibility criteria: A systematic analysis using ClinicalTrials.gov

BackgroundA number of prior studies have demonstrated that research participants with limited English proficiency in the United States are routinely excluded from clinical trial participation. Systematic exclusion through study eligibility criteria that require trial participants to be able to speak, read, and/or understand English affects access to clinical trials and scientific generalizability. We sought to establish the frequency with which English language proficiency is required and, conversely, when non-English languages are affirmatively accommodated in US interventional clinical trials for adult populations.Methods and findingsWe used the advanced search function on ClinicalTrials.gov specifying interventional studies for adults with at least 1 site in the US. In addition, we used these search criteria to find studies with an available posted protocol. A computer program was written to search for evidence of English or Spanish language requirements, or the posted protocol, when available, was manually read for these language requirements. Of the 14,367 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 January 2019 and 1 December 2020 that met baseline search criteria, 18.98% (95% CI 18.34%–19.62%; n = 2,727) required the ability to read, speak, and/or understand English, and 2.71% (95% CI 2.45%–2.98%; n = 390) specifically mentioned accommodation of translation to another language. The remaining trials in this analysis and the following sub-analyses did not mention English language requirements or accommodation of languages other than English. Of 2,585 federally funded clinical trials, 28.86% (95% CI 27.11%–30.61%; n = 746) required English language proficiency and 4.68% (95% CI 3.87%–5.50%; n = 121) specified accommodation of other languages; of the 5,286 industry-funded trials, 5.30% (95% CI 4.69%–5.90%; n = 280) required English and 0.49% (95% CI 0.30%–0.69%; n = 26) accommodated other languages. Trials related to infectious disease were less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (10.07% versus 18.98%; relative risk [RR] = 0.53; 95% CI 0.44–0.64; p < 0.001). Trials related to COVID-19 were also less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (8.18% versus 18.98%; RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.33–0.56; p < 0.001). Trials with a posted protocol (n = 366) were more likely than all registered clinical trials to specify an English requirement (36.89% versus 18.98%; RR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.69–2.23; p < 0.001). A separate analysis of studies with posted protocols in 4 therapeutic areas (depression, diabetes, breast cancer, and prostate cancer) demonstrated that clinical trials related to depression were the most likely to require English (52.24%; 95% CI 40.28%–64.20%). One limitation of this study is that the computer program only searched for the terms “English” and “Spanish” and may have missed evidence of other language accommodations. Another limitation is that we did not differentiate between requirements to read English, speak English, understand English, and be a native English speaker; we grouped these requirements together in the category of English language requirements.ConclusionsA meaningful percentage of US interventional clinical trials for adults exclude individuals who cannot read, speak, and/or understand English, or are not native English speakers. To advance more inclusive and generalizable research, funders, sponsors, institutions, investigators, institutional review boards, and others should prioritize translating study materials and eliminate language requirements unless justified either scientifically or ethically.

Akila Muthukumar and coauthors, systematically analyze ClinicalTrials.gov to evaluate the frequency of English language requirements in clinical trial eligibility criteria.     

Preparing for and Executing a Randomised Controlled Trial of Podoconiosis Treatment in Northern Ethiopia: The Utility of Rapid Ethical Assessment

BackgroundCommunity-based randomized controlled trials are often complex pieces of research with significant challenges around the approach to the community, information provision, and decision-making, all of which are fundamental to the informed consent process. We conducted a rapid ethical assessment to guide the preparation for and conduct of a randomized controlled trial of podoconiosis treatment in northern Ethiopia.MethodsA qualitative study was carried out in Aneded woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara Regional State from August to September, 2013. A total of 14 In-depth Interviews (IDIs) with researchers, experts, and leaders, and 8 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) involving 80 participants (people of both gender, with and without podoconiosis), were conducted. Interviews were carried out in Amharic. Data analysis was started alongside collection. Final data analysis used a thematic approach based on themes identified a priori and those that emerged during the analysis.ResultsRespondents made a range of specific suggestions, including that sensitisation meetings were called by woreda or kebele leaders or the police; that Health Extension Workers were asked to accompany the research team to patients’ houses; that detailed trial information was explained by someone with deep local knowledge; that analogies from agriculture and local social organisations be used to explain randomisation; that participants in the ‘delayed’ intervention arm be given small incentives to continue in the trial; and that key community members be asked to quell rumours arising in the course of the trial.ConclusionMany of these recommendations were incorporated into the preparatory phases of the trial, or were used during the course of the trial itself. This demonstrates the utility of rapid ethical assessment preceding a complex piece of research in a relatively research-naive setting.     

Population biobanks and returning individual research results: mission impossible or new directions?

Historically, large-scale longitudinal genomic research studies have not returned individual research results to their participants, as these studies are not intended to find clinically significant information for individuals, but to produce ‘generalisable’ knowledge for future research. However, this stance is now changing. Commentators now argue that there is an ethical imperative to return clinically significant results and individuals are now expressing a desire to have them. This shift reflects societal changes, such as the rise of social networking and an increased desire to participate in medical decision-making, as well as a greater awareness of genetic information and the increasing ability of clinicians to use this information in health care treatment. This paper will discuss the changes that have prompted genomic research studies to reconsider their position and presents examples of projects that are actively engaged in returning individual research results.     

Engaging Diverse Social and Cultural Worlds: Perspectives on Benefits in International Clinical Research From South African Communities

The issue of benefits in international clinical research is highly controversial. Against the background of wide recognition of the need to share benefits of research, the nature of benefits remains strongly contested. Little is known about the perspectives of research populations on this issue and the extent to which research ethics discourses and guidelines are salient to the expectations and aspirations existing on the ground. This exploratory study contributes to filling this void by examining perspectives of people in low‐income South African communities on benefits in international clinical research. Twenty‐four individuals with and without experience of being involved in clinical research participated in in‐depth interviews. Respondents felt that ancillary care should be provided to clinical research participants, while a clinical study conducted in particular community should bring better health to its members through post‐trial benefits. Respondents' perspectives were grounded in the perception that the ultimate goal of international clinical research is to improve local health. We argue that perspectives and understandings of the respondents are shaped by local moral traditions rather than clinical research specificities and require attention as valid moral claims. It is necessary to acknowledge such claims and cultural worlds from which they emerge, thus building the foundation for equal and embracing dialogue to bridge different perspectives and handle contradicting expectations.     

Clinical trials and SCID row: the ethics of phase 1 trials in the developing world

Relatively little has been written about the ethics of conducting early phase clinical trials involving subjects from the developing world. Below, I analyze ethical issues surrounding one of gene transfer's most widely praised studies conducted to date: in this study, Italian investigators recruited two subjects from the developing world who were ineligible for standard of care because of economic considerations. Though the study seems to have rendered a cure in these two subjects, it does not appear to have complied with various international guidelines that require that clinical trials conducted in the developing world be responsive to their populations' health needs. Nevertheless, policies devised to address large scale, late stage trials, such as the AZT short-course placebo trials, map somewhat awkwardly to early phase studies. I argue that interest in conducting translational research in the developing world, particularly in the context of hemophilia trials, should motivate more rigorous ethical thinking around clinical trials involving economically disadvantaged populations.     

Research Blogging: Indexing and Registering the Change in Science 2.0

Increasing public interest in science information in a digital and 2.0 science era promotes a dramatically, rapid and deep change in science itself. The emergence and expansion of new technologies and internet-based tools is leading to new means to improve scientific methodology and communication, assessment, promotion and certification. It allows methods of acquisition, manipulation and storage, generating vast quantities of data that can further facilitate the research process. It also improves access to scientific results through information sharing and discussion. Content previously restricted only to specialists is now available to a wider audience. This context requires new management systems to make scientific knowledge more accessible and useable, including new measures to evaluate the reach of scientific information. The new science and research quality measures are strongly related to the new online technologies and services based in social media. Tools such as blogs, social bookmarks and online reference managers, Twitter and others offer alternative, transparent and more comprehensive information about the active interest, usage and reach of scientific publications. Another of these new filters is the Research Blogging platform, which was created in 2007 and now has over 1,230 active blogs, with over 26,960 entries posted about peer-reviewed research on subjects ranging from Anthropology to Zoology. This study takes a closer look at RB, in order to get insights into its contribution to the rapidly changing landscape of scientific communication.     

Recruiting clinical personnel as research participants: a framework for assessing feasibility

Increasing numbers of research studies test interventions for clinicians in addition to or instead of interventions for patients. Although previous studies have enumerated barriers to patient enrolment in clinical trials, corresponding barriers have not been identified for enrolling clinicians as subjects. We propose a framework of metrics for evidence-based estimation of time and resources required for recruiting clinicians as research participants, and present an example from a federally funded study. Our framework proposes metrics for tracking five steps in the recruitment process: gaining entry into facilities, obtaining accurate eligibility and contact information, reaching busy clinicians, assessing willingness to participate, and scheduling participants for data collection. We analyzed recruitment records from a qualitative study exploring performance feedback at US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs); five recruiters sought to reach two clinicians at 16 facilities for a one-hour interview. Objective metrics were calculable for all five steps; metric values varied considerably across facilities. Obtaining accurate contact information slowed down recruiting the most. We conclude that successfully recruiting even small numbers of employees requires considerable resourcefulness and more calendar time than anticipated. Our proposed framework provides an empirical basis for estimating research-recruitment timelines, planning subject-recruitment strategies, and assessing the research accessibility of clinical sites.     

Information giving in clinical trials: the views of medical researchers

It is both an ethical and a legal requirement that patients who participate in clinical trials must generally give their consent. As part of this process, patients must be provided with adequate information to enable them to decide whether or not to take part. In the UK, the pharmaceutical companies that sponsor such research, as well as Local Research Ethics Committees, specify in detail the information that must be given to trial participants. The researchers who conduct clinical trials inevitably form views on the amount of information they are required to provide, and about patients' comprehension of that information. The literature in this area suggests that some medical researchers may be unhappy with the amount of information that they must give patient participants. There have been, however, few systematic attempts to determine their views. This paper reports a study that explored researchers' views as to (i) the amount of information provided to trial participants, and (ii) participants' understanding of that information. Researchers generally felt that they were required to give trial participants an appropriate amount of information, and that most patients had at least a reasonable understanding of key aspects of the clinical trials' process. However, there were differing views as to the level of information that they felt patients themselves wanted. The researchers did not generally feel that the patients' inability to comprehend information rendered the process of obtaining 'informed consent' a waste of time. However, some did believe that they were required to burden patients with excessive information.     

Ethical Considerations for Outcome‐adaptive Trial Designs: A Clinical Researcher's Perspective

In a typical comparative clinical trial the randomization scheme is fixed at the beginning of the study, and maintained throughout the course of the trial. A number of researchers have championed a randomized trial design referred to as ‘outcome‐adaptive randomization.’ In this type of trial, the likelihood of a patient being enrolled to a particular arm of the study increases or decreases as preliminary information becomes available suggesting that treatment may be superior or inferior. While the design merits of outcome‐adaptive trials have been debated, little attention has been paid to significant ethical concerns that arise in the conduct of such studies. These include loss of equipoise, lack of processes for adequate informed consent, and inequalities inherent in the research design which could lead to perceptions of injustice that may have negative implications for patients and the research enterprise. This article examines the ethical difficulties inherent in outcome‐adaptive trials.     

Communication about Children's Clinical Trials as Observed and Experienced: Qualitative Study of Parents and Practitioners

Background

Recruiting children to clinical trials is perceived to be challenging. To identify ways to optimise recruitment and its conduct, we compared how parents and practitioners described their experiences of recruitment to clinical trials.

Methods and Findings

This qualitative study ran alongside four children''s clinical trials in 11 UK research sites. It compared analyses of semi-structured interviews with analyses of audio-recordings of practitioner-family dialogue during trial recruitment discussions. Parents from 59 families were interviewed; 41 had participated in audio-recorded recruitment discussions. 31 practitioners were interviewed. Parents said little in the recruitment discussions contributing a median 16% of the total dialogue and asking a median of one question. Despite this, parents reported a positive experience of the trial approach describing a sense of comfort and safety. Even if they declined or if the discussion took place at a difficult time, parents understood the need to approach them and spoke of the value of research. Some parents viewed participation as an ‘exciting’ opportunity. By contrast, practitioners often worried that approaching families about research burdened families. Some practitioners implied that recruiting to clinical trials was something which they found aversive. Many were also concerned about the amount of information they had to provide and believed this overwhelmed families. Whilst some practitioners thought the trial information leaflets were of little use to families, parents reported that they used and valued the leaflets. However, both parties agreed that the leaflets were too long and wanted them to be more reader-friendly.

Conclusions

Parents were more positive about being approached to enter their child into a clinical trial than practitioners anticipated. The concerns of some practitioners, that parents would be overburdened, were unfounded. Educating practitioners about how families perceive clinical trials and providing them with ‘moral’ support in approaching families may benefit paediatric research and, ultimately, patients.     

PROCESS FOR OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT: WOMEN’S OPINIONS

In Brazil, every study involving human beings is required to produce an informed consent form that must be signed by study participants: this is stated in Resolution 196/96. 1 Consent must be obtained through a specific structured process. Objective: To present the opinions of women regarding how the process of obtaining informed consent should be conducted when women are invited to participate in studies on contraceptive methods. Subjects and Methods: Eight focus groups were conducted, involving a total of 51 women living in the metropolitan region of Campinas. The women involved in the study were either participating in a clinical trial in the area of women’s health or had participated in such a trial in the previous 12 months. A thematic guide was used to conduct the focus group discussions; the discussions were recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed. Results: In general, the person who invites a woman to participate in a study should be a member of the research team but not the principal investigator. Information relating to the study should be given orally and in writing, both individually and in the group setting. Study volunteers should be informed about, among other things, the risks, possible side effects and discomforts, including long‐term effects. The use of audiovisual aids to provide information was suggested. Conclusion: The process for obtaining informed consent was seen as a means of establishing a relationship between the volunteers and the investigator/research team. The information that the study participants expected to be given coincides with the requirements established under Resolution 196/96. The use of audiovisual aids would improve understanding of the information provided.