Ethical issues in competing clinical trials

Quantifying geographical accessibility to cancer clinical trials in different income landscapes

Background

Clinical trials are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic opportunity for cancer patients. Favoring their concentration in few high-expertise academic centers maximizes quality of data collection but poses an issue of access equality. Analytical tools to quantify trial accessibility are needed to rationalize resources.

Materials and methods

We constructed a distance-based accessibility index (dAI) using publicly available data on demographics, cancer incidence and trials. Multiple strategies were applied to mitigate or quantify clear sources of bias: reporting biases by text mining multiple registries; reliability of simple geographical distance by comparison with high-quality travel cost data for Italy; index inflation due to highly heterogeneous cancer incidence by log-transformation. We studied inequalities by Gini index and time trend significance by Mann–Kendall test. We simulated different resource allocation models in representative countries and identified locations where new studies would maximally improve the national index.

Results

The dAI approximated well a more realistic but not widely applicable travel cost-based index. Accessibility was unevenly distributed across and within countries (Gini index ∼0.75), with maximal inequalities in high- and upper-middle-income countries (China, United States, Russian Federation). Over time, accessibility increased but less than the total number of trials, most evidently in upper-middle-income countries. Simulations in representative countries (Italy and Serbia) identified ideal locations able to maximally raise the national index.

Conclusions

Access to clinical trials is highly uneven across and within countries and is not mitigated by simple increase in the number of trials; a rational algorithmic approach can be used to mitigate inequalities.

•

Accessibility to cancer clinical trials grew less than total number of trials over time in upper-middle-income countries.

•

Accessibility is unevenly distributed, with maximal inequalities in high- and upper-middle-income countries.

•

Simulation of resource allocation can identify ideal locations able to raise the national accessibility index.

From vision to action: Canadian leadership in ethics and neurotechnology

This chapter explores the complex neuroethical aspects of neurosurgery and neuromodulation in the context of Canadian healthcare and innovation, as seen through the lens of the Pan Canadian Neurotechnology Ethics Consortium (PCNEC). Highlighted are key areas of ethical focus, each with its own unique challenges: technical advances, readiness and risk, vulnerable populations, medico-legal issues, training, and research. Through an exploration of Canadian neurotechnological practice from these various clusters, we provide a critical review of progress, describe opportunities to address areas of debate, and seek to foster ethical innovation. Underpinning this comprehensive review are the fundamental principles of solution-oriented, practical neuroethics, with beneficence and justice at the core. In our view, it is a moral imperative that neurotechnological advancements include a delineation of ethical priorities for future guidelines, oversight, and interactions.

Prioritizing studies of COVID-19 and lessons learned

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 altered research in Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs in an unprecedented manner, leading to adjustments for COVID-19 research.

METHODS

CTSA members volunteered to conduct a review on the impact of CTSA network on COVID-19 pandemic with the assistance from NIH survey team in October 2020. The survey questions included the involvement of CTSAs in decision-making concerning the prioritization of COVID-19 studies. Descriptive and statistical analyses were conducted to analyze the survey data.

RESULTS

60 of the 64 CTSAs completed the survey. Most CTSAs lacked preparedness but promptly responded to the pandemic. Early disruption of research triggered, enhanced CTSA engagement, creation of dedicated research areas and triage for prioritization of COVID-19 studies. CTSAs involvement in decision-making were 16.75 times more likely to create dedicated diagnostic laboratories (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17-129.39; P < 0.01). Likewise, institutions with internal funding were 3.88 times more likely to establish COVID-19 dedicated research (95% CI = 1.12-13.40; P < 0.05). CTSAs were instrumental in securing funds and facilitating establishment of laboratory/clinical spaces for COVID-19 research. Workflow was modified to support contracting and IRB review at most institutions with CTSAs. To mitigate chaos generated by competing clinical trials, central feasibility committees were often formed for orderly review/prioritization.

CONCLUSIONS

The lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic emphasize the pivotal role of CTSAs in prioritizing studies and establishing the necessary research infrastructure, and the importance of prompt and flexible research leadership with decision-making capacity to manage future pandemics.