Response to Striefel and Glaros

In this response to the comments of Drs. Striefel and Glaros, we take issue with Dr. Striefel's assertion that the Declaration of Helsinki should not be regarded as a core ethical document, and demonstrate that his claim that the Declaration has no significance in or recognition by agencies of the United States Federal Government is in error. A reading of FDA and DHHS documents shows that the Declaration is not, as Dr. Striefel suggested, only an aspirational document, but also is clearly regarded as mandatory. Dr. Glaros' observations regarding the slippery concept of efficacy is very much on point, and we certainly agree with his call for more data. It is the means by which that can be accomplished that is problematic. We have suggested that the logic of placebo controls developed to render drug efficacy studies more rigorous and scientifically grounded does not translate well to many psychological and behavioral studies of efficacy. It is important for our discipline to rethink the standards by which new behavioral and psychological (including psychophysiological) interventions can be demonstrated to be efficacious. One possible approach that avoids ethical pitfalls and design impossibilities is the active control, which requires good demonstration of assay sensitivity. We hope that this discussion may stimulate further discussion about other approaches that do not depend upon the flawed placebo orthodoxy.     

Political legitimacy and research ethics

In democratic theory, “legitimacy” refers to the set of conditions that must be in place in order for the claims to authority of somebody to be deemed appropriate, and for their claims to compliance to be warranted. Though criteria of legitimacy have been elaborated in the context of democratic states, there is no reason for them not to be drawn up, with appropriate amendments, for other kinds of authority structures. This paper examines the claims to authority made over researchers by international bodies governing research ethics, who exercise their authority by the research ethics guidelines they produce (including recent revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS Guidelines). We argue that discussions of such bodies and sets of guidelines often elide questions of justification and questions of legitimacy, and that the grounds that might allow us to mount a strong case for the latter are at present sorely underdeveloped.     

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.     

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.     

The placebo response in clinical trials: more questions than answers

Meta-analyses and re-analyses of trial data have not been able to answer some of the essential questions that would allow prediction of placebo responses in clinical trials. We will confront these questions with current empirical evidence. The most important question asks whether the placebo response rates in the drug arm and in the placebo arm are equal. This 'additive model' is a general assumption in almost all placebo-controlled drug trials but has rarely been tested. Secondly, we would like to address whether the placebo response is a function of the likelihood of receiving drug/placebo. Evidence suggests that the number of study arms in a trial may determine the size of the placebo and the drug response. Thirdly, we ask what the size of the placebo response is in 'comparator' studies with a direct comparison of a (novel) drug against another drug. Meta-analytic and experimental evidence suggests that comparator studies may produce higher placebo response rates when compared with placebo-controlled trials. Finally, we address the placebo response rate outside the laboratory and outside of trials in clinical routine. This question poses a serious challenge whether the drug response in trials can be taken as evidence of drug effects in clinical routine.     

DISPUTING THE ETHICS OF RESEARCH: THE CHALLENGE FROM BIOETHICS AND PATIENT ACTIVISM TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DECLARATION OF HELSINKI IN CLINICAL TRIALS

In this paper we argue that the consensus around normative standards for the ethics of research in clinical trials, strongly influenced by the Declaration of Helsinki, is perceived from various quarters as too conservative and potentially restrictive of research that is seen as urgent and necessary. We examine this problem from the perspective of various challengers who argue for alternative approaches to what ought or ought not to be permitted. Key themes within this analysis will examine these claims and argue they have implications for the interests of the research subject, research governance and regulation. Using our work with TREAT‐NMD, the neuromuscular clinical trials network, we posit that there is a place for advancing the discourse of moral rights and moral duties in the context of research, especially from the perspective of patients and their families, and for including the politics of patient activism and empowerment. At the same time we remain vigilant to the danger that the therapeutic misconception and other serious vulnerabilities for the patient population in clinical trials, are at risk of being overlooked.     

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.     

GOING FROM PRINCIPLES TO RULES IN RESEARCH ETHICS

In research ethics there is a canon regarding what ethical rules ought to be followed by investigators vis‐à‐vis their treatment of subjects and a canon regarding what fundamental ethical principles apply to the endeavor. What I aim to demonstrate here is that several of the rules find no support in the principles. This leaves anyone who would insist that we not abandon those rules in the difficult position of needing to establish that we are nevertheless justified in believing in the validity of the rules. I conclude by arguing that this is not likely to be accomplished. The rules I call into question are the rules requiring:

• – that studies be designed in a scientifically valid way
• – that risks to subjects be minimized
• – that subjects be afforded post‐trial access to experimental interventions
• – that inducements paid to subjects not be counted as a benefit to them
• – that inducements paid to subjects not be ‘undue’
• – that subjects must remain free to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason without penalty

Both canons, the canon on principles and the canon on rules, are found in the overlap among ethical pronouncements that are themselves canonical: the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, CIOMS's International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, and NBAC's 2001 report, Ethical Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries.     

A Problem of Equivalence in Clinical Trials

Several methods exist for testing the bioequivalence in bioavailability trials. In this article we propose a method for testing the equivalence of two drugs in clinical trials when the response variable is assumed to have a normal distribution. The null and alternative hypotheses are formulated in a nonconventional manner. Computing aspects for the power and sample size are discussed.     

International ethical regulations on placebo-use in clinical trials: a comparative analysis

The ethical aspects of placebo control in clinical trials have been extensively and controversially debated in the last decade. However, a thorough analytical comparison of the different existing international regulations, their terminologies and their ethical principles concerning placebo, is still missing. The central issue in the ongoing controversy is the justification of placebo-use, if proven treatment exists. All present versions of the examined guidelines propose such justifications, but each guideline differs from the others in relevant details. Therefore the conditions justifying placebo-use according to each guideline are the focus of our attention. We will first propose a formalized general principle that defines the ethical acceptability of placebo-use. Then we will analyse three categories of conditions put forward by the different documents: the risk of harm or burden, compelling scientific reasons, and the availability of proven treatment. The analysis shows important normative discrepancies and contradictions between the examined guidelines. Especially striking is the fact that some guidelines allow the participants in clinical trials to be exposed to a risk of serious harm, while others do not. Finally, we try to show how the normative difference of each guideline could influence the decision of researchers or IRBs concerning the ethical acceptability of placebo-use.     

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.     

Introduction to placebo effects in medicine: mechanisms and clinical implications

The field of placebo research has made considerable progress in the last years and it has become a major focus of interest. We know now that the placebo effect is a real neurobiological phenomenon and that the brain's 'inner pharmacy' is a critical determinant for the occurrence of psychobiological and behavioural changes relevant to healing processes and well-being. However, harnessing the advantages of placebo effects in healthcare is still a challenge. The first part of the theme issue summarizes and discusses the various kinds of placebo mechanisms across medical fields, thereby not only focusing on two main explanatory models-expectation and conditioning theory-but also taking into account empathy and social learning, emotion and motivation, spirituality and the healing ritual. The second part of the issue focuses on questions related to transferring knowledge from placebo research into clinical practice and discusses implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials, for the therapeutic settings in daily patient care, and for future translational placebo research.     

Estimation and inference for the causal effect of receiving treatment on a multinomial outcome

Summary .  This article considers the analysis of two-arm randomized trials with noncompliance, which have a multinomial outcome. We first define the causal effect in these trials as some function of outcome distributions of compliers with and without treatment (e.g., the complier average causal effect, the measure of stochastic superiority of treatment over control for compliers), then estimate the causal effect with the likelihood method. Next, based on the likelihood-ratio (LR) statistic, we test those functions of or the equality of the outcome distributions of compliers with and without treatment. Although the corresponding LR statistic follows a chi-squared  (χ²)  distribution asymptotically when the true values of parameters are in the interior of the parameter space under the null, its asymptotic distribution is not  χ²  when the true values of parameters are on the boundary of the parameter space under the null. Therefore, we propose a bootstrap/double bootstrap version of a LR test for the causal effect in these trials. The methods are illustrated by an analysis of data from a randomized trial of an encouragement intervention to improve adherence to prescribed depression treatments among depressed elderly patients in primary care practices.     

Attitudes toward Post‐Trial Access to Medical Interventions: A Review of Academic Literature,Legislation, and International Guidelines

There is currently no international consensus around post‐trial obligations toward research participants, community members, and host countries. This literature review investigates arguments and attitudes toward post‐trial access. The literature review found that academic discussions focused on the rights of research participants, but offered few practical recommendations for addressing or improving current practices. Similarly, there are few regulations or legislation pertaining to post‐trial access. If regulatory changes are necessary, we need to understand the current arguments, legislation, and attitudes towards post‐trial access and participants and community members. Given that clinical trials conducted in low‐income countries will likely continue, there is an urgent need for consideration of post‐trial benefits for participants, communities, and citizens of host countries. While this issue may not be as pressing in countries where participants have access to healthcare and medicines through public schemes, it is particularly important in regions where this may not be available.     

Off‐Shoring Clinical Research: Exploitation and the Reciprocity Constraint

The last 20 years have seen a staggering growth in the practice of off‐shoring clinical research to low‐and middle‐income countries (LICs and MICs), a growth that has been matched by the neoliberal policies adopted by host countries towards attracting trials to their shores. A recurring concern in this context is the charge of exploitation, linked to various aspects of off‐shoring. In this paper, I examine Alan Wertheimer's approach and offer an alternative view of understanding exploitation in this context. I will suggest that the justification for the enterprise of research is largely dependent on its integration within a health system from which participants regularly benefit and I argue that an attention to a principle of reciprocity will enable us to better recognize and address exploitation in international research.