Do healthy children deserve greater protection in medical research?

Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research: A Philosophical Review and Reconsideration

Despite more than thirty years of debate, disagreement persists among research ethicists about the most appropriate way to interpret the U.S. regulations on pediatric research, specifically the categories of "minimal risk" and a "minor increase over minimal risk." Focusing primarily on the definition of "minimal risk," we argue in this article that the continued debate about the pediatric risk categories is at least partly because their conceptual status is seldom considered directly. Once this is done, it becomes clear that the most popular strategy for interpreting "minimal risk"-defining it as a specific set of risks-is indefensible and, from a pragmatic perspective, unlikely to resolve disagreement. Primarily this is because judgments about minimal risk are both normative and heavily intuitive in nature and thus cannot easily be captured by reductions to a given set of risks. We suggest instead that a more defensible approach to evaluating risk should incorporate room for reflection and deliberation. This dispositional, deliberative framework can nonetheless accommodate a number of intellectual resources for reducing reliance on sheer intuition and improving the quality of risk evaluations.

Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research Harm Children With and Without Disabilities

Children have been exposed to unjustifiable risks that in some cases amount to research abuse. Powerful, financially interconnected stakeholders control all facets of research, including the approval process. Physician investigators, their academic institutions, and institutional review boards (IRBs) all come under the influence of funding sponsors, whose interests conflict with the best interest of children. Children cannot rely on IRBs or on any of the existing research oversight agencies to protect them, for research too often takes inordinate risks in the name of the greater good.

Body matters: rethinking the ethical acceptability of non-beneficial clinical research with children

The involvement of children in non-beneficial clinical research is extremely important for improving pediatric care, but its ethical acceptability is still disputed. Therefore, various pro-research justifications have been proposed throughout the years. The present essay aims at contributing to the on-going discussion surrounding children's participation in non-beneficial clinical research. Building on Wendler's 'contribution to a valuable project' justification, but going beyond a risk/benefit analysis, it articulates a pro-research argument which appeals to a phenomenological view on the body and vulnerability. It is claimed that children's bodies are not mere physical objects, but body-subjects due to which children, as persons, can contribute to research that may hold no direct clinical benefit to them even before they can give informed consent.

PAeDS-MoRe: A framework for the development and review of research assent protocols involving children and adolescents

We systematically reviewed contemporary literature to create an evidence-informed framework for research studies involving children and adolescents who can assent to participate. We searched seven citation indices to locate peer-reviewed research published in English language journals between 2000 and 2012. After screening 1,231 titles and abstracts for relevance, we assessed levels of evidence, extracted information, and analysed content from 87 articles. Most articles narrowly focused on paediatric assent barriers and facilitators for decision-making about research participation. No articles provided a single, comprehensive ethical framework to guide the development and review of research assent protocols. We developed a 6-step framework that provides guidance to: prepare the child for the assent process; assess the child’s readiness to engage in decision making; discuss the elements of informed consent to the greatest extent possible; seek an initial assent decision; monitor and affirm assent; and respect the child’s role as a research participant. The PAeDS-MoRe framework also supports the creation of process models that address the unique, developmental needs of paediatric sub-groups, and guides the operationalization of jurisdictional requirements for ethical research involving children who are unable to provide free, informed and ongoing consent.

On the minimal risk threshold in research with children

To protect children in research, procedures that are not administered in the medical interests of a child must be restricted. The risk threshold for these procedures is generally measured according to the concept of minimal risk. Minimal risk is often defined according to the risks of "daily life." But it is not clear whose daily life should serve as the baseline; that is, it is not clear to whom minimal risk should refer. Commentators in research ethics often argue that "minimal risk" should refer to healthy children or the subjects of the research. I argue that neither of these interpretations is successful. I propose a new interpretation in which minimal risk refers to children who are not unduly burdened by their daily lives. I argue that children are not unduly burdened when they fare well, and I defend a substantive goods account of children's welfare.

Higher-hazard, no benefit research involving children: parental perspectives

OBJECTIVES

US regulations allow local institutional review boards to approve greater than minimal risk, no-benefit research when the research enrolls children with the condition under study but not when it enrolls healthy children. We aim to describe the opinions of parents regarding higher-hazard, no-benefit research

METHODS

Quantitative and qualitative interviews with parents of children without heart disease or chronic medical conditions (no heart disease [noHD], n = 30), children with fully correctable heart disease (FCHD, n = 30), and children with life-altering heart disease (LAHD, n = 30).

RESULTS

Parents of children with heart disease endorse higher-hazard, no-benefit heart disease research more strongly than noHD parents. Eight of 30 noHD parents, 19 of 30 FCHD parents, and 26 of 30 LAHD parents reported willingness to enroll their children in a heart disease research study involving an otherwise unnecessary chest radiograph (P < .01). There was no difference among groups in willingness to enroll their children in a similar study focused on childhood cancer. Twenty-two of 30 FCHD and 30 of 30 LAHD parents reported that parents have a responsibility to enroll their children in medical research to help future children with heart disease. Twenty-one of 30 noHD parents, 29 of 30 FCHD parents, and 30 of 30 LAHD parents feel able to evaluate the risks of medical research (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Parental opinions regarding higher-hazard, no-benefit research align with federal regulations. Parental willingness to enroll their children in higher-hazard, no-benefit research is driven in part by a sense of obligation to a community of families affected by childhood heart disease.

Dealing with the long-term social implications of research

Biomedical and behavioral research may affect strongly held social values and thereby create significant controversy over whether such research should be permitted in the first place. Institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of participants in research are sometimes faced with review of protocols that have significant implications for social policy and the potential for negative social consequences. Although IRB members often raise concerns about potential long-term social implications in protocol review, federal regulations strongly discourage IRBs from considering them in their decisions. Yet IRBs often do consider the social implications of research protocols and sometimes create significant delays in initiating or even prevent such research. The social implications of research are important topics for public scrutiny and professional discussion. This article examines the reasons that the federal regulations preclude IRBs from assessing the social risks of research, and examines alternative approaches that have been used with varying success by national advisory groups to provide such guidance. The article concludes with recommendations for characteristics of a national advisory group that could successfully fulfill this need, including sustainability, independence, diverse and relevant expertise, and public transparency.

Children as hematopoietic stem cell donors

In the past half-century, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has become standard treatment for a variety of diseases in children and adults, including selected hematologic malignancies, immunodeficiencies, hemoglobinopathies, bone marrow failure syndromes, and congenital metabolic disorders. There are 3 sources of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cells: bone marrow, peripheral blood, and umbilical cord blood; each has its own benefits and risks. Children often serve as hematopoietic stem cell donors, most commonly for their siblings. HLA-matched biological siblings are generally preferred as donors because of reduced risks of transplant-related complications as compared with unrelated donors. This statement includes a discussion of the ethical considerations regarding minors serving as stem cell donors, using the traditional benefit/burden calculation from the perspectives of both the donor and the recipient. The statement also includes an examination of the circumstances under which a minor may ethically participate as a hematopoietic stem cell donor, how the risks can be minimized, what the informed-consent process should entail, the role for a donor advocate (or some similar mechanism), and other ethical concerns. The American Academy of Pediatrics holds that minors can ethically serve as stem cell donors when specific criteria are fulfilled.

Pediatric research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit: challenging 45 CFR 46.406

Subpart D of the Common Rule establishes 4 categories of research that may be conducted on children. One category, 45 CFR 46.406, permits research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit but expected to yield vital knowledge about the subjects' disorder or condition. To include other children in research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit requires federal review and approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 45 CFR 46.407. It is widely held that children generally should not be exposed to more than minimal risk in research without the prospect of direct benefit. To justify deviating from this norm, as 406 allows, two claims must be true: (1) When there is vital knowledge to be gained from studying children, it is permissible to expose some children to a minor increase over minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit; (2) It is permissible for locally reviewed and approved research to expose only children with the disorder or condition under investigation to greater risk with no prospect of direct benefit. The justification for (1) appears to be grounded in the magnitude of benefit to society combined with the need to study children. This article demonstrates that, even if the necessity and magnitude of benefit to society justify exposing children to increased risk, the decision to categorically restrict participation in such research to children with the disorder or condition under investigation (unless the study is federally reviewed and approved) is not justified. Subpart D should be revised.

Perceptions of parents on the participation of their infants in clinical research

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the motivations and perceptions of parents on the participation of their infants and young children in a comprehensive and invasive clinical research study.

METHODS

Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 mothers with asthma whose infants and young children were participating in the Copenhagen Prospective Study on Asthma in Childhood. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using the template analysis method.

RESULTS

Parents were motivated by altruism and by the opportunity to get their child checked regularly by medical experts to prevent the possible development of asthma. Parents found it very important that their children enjoyed their visits to the research clinic, and that they could withdraw from the study if their child started responding negatively to those visits. No apparent difference was seen in the attitude between the parents of children with lung or skin symptoms and those of healthy children.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to design and accomplish invasive clinical research on infants and young children in a manner that parents find ethically sound.

Issues surrounding protection and assent in pediatric research

PURPOSE

This article provides the physical therapist (PT) researcher with valuable information regarding the issues of assent by reviewing the history, regulations, and issues surrounding the protection of children participating in research.

KEY POINTS

To conduct ethical research, knowledge about the history, regulations, and issues surrounding the protection of children in research is important. While most of the research done by PTs is non-invasive and low risk, it is still important for a researcher to be aware of the full spectrum of risk involved with research. An important topic for PTs involves the related concepts of parental permission and child assent. Those children, who are capable of understanding a research study, need to know what is involved in the study and have the choice to participate or to decline to participate.

SUMMARY/CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

PTs should be encouraged to be involved in research to advance the profession and contribute to evidence-based practice. Due to this, PTs are becoming more involved in the process of obtaining assent from a child, and therefore need to be aware of the unique aspects of this process.

Institutional review board guidance on pediatric research: missed opportunities

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether and how institutional review boards (IRBs) are using their web-sites to provide guidance to investigators conducting pediatric research.

STUDY DESIGN

We studied guidance on pediatric research from IRB web-sites at the 25 US medical schools, plus affiliated hospitals, research centers, and public health schools, and the top National Institutes of Health-funded (>5 million dollars) children's hospitals with separate IRBs. We also included 1 IRB that was not otherwise eligible because other IRBs use its web-based research ethics training program. Our final study population was 39 IRB web-sites.

RESULTS

IRB web-sites generally provide basic information about pediatric research. However, few IRBs discuss important ethical issues on which the regulations are silent. Moreover, some IRBs provide incorrect advice about the regulations. More detailed IRB guidance may help pediatric investigators think through ethical issues and protect children in clinical research. Helpful approaches we identified include checklists and "points to consider," concrete examples to illustrate regulatory requirements, and discussion of areas of controversy.

CONCLUSION

Few IRBs present the kind of detailed guidance that investigators might need to ensure ethically designed protocols. IRBs should revise their web-sites to ensure that they provide accurate, comprehensive, and sufficiently detailed guidance.

Clinical trials in children

The imperative to undertake randomised trials in children arises from extraordinary advances in basic biomedical sciences, needing a matching commitment to translational research if child health is to reap the benefits from this new knowledge. Unfortunately, many prescribed treatments for children have not been adequately tested in children, sometimes resulting in harmful treatments being given and beneficial treatments being withheld. Government, industry, funding agencies, and clinicians are responsible for research priorities being adult-focused because of the greater burden of disease in adults, coupled with financial and marketing considerations. This bias has meant that the equal rights of children to participate in trials has not always been recognised. This is changing, however, as the need for clinical trials in children has been increasingly recognised by the scientific community and broader public, leading to new legislation in some countries making trials of interventions mandatory in children as well as adults before drug approval is given. Trials in children are more challenging than those in adults. The pool of eligible children entering trials is often small because many conditions are uncommon in children, and the threshold for gaining consent is often higher and more complex because parents have to make decisions about trial participation on behalf of their child. Uncertain about what is best, despite supporting the notion of trials in principle, parents and paediatricians generally opt for the new intervention or for standard care rather than trial participation. In this review, we explore issues relating to trial participation for children and suggest some strategies for improving the conduct of clinical trials involving children.

Pharmacogenomics and children: meeting the ethical challenges

Pharmacogenomic research promises to permit the development and delivery of safer and more effective drugs. If children are to receive these benefits, as justice would demand that they should, children must be included in trials that assess the impact of genetic variation, changing patterns of gene expression over time, and the effects of administering drugs. The ethical and legal challenges to conducting the necessary research include concerns about vulnerability and issues of consent, the scientific validity of the studies and the larger policy question of priority setting. Proposed strategies for ensuring the appropriate conduct of this research include analysis of the ethics based on risks and harms rather than presence or absence of a disorder, the development of model substrates to conduct physiological testing more safely, and the consideration of the disposition and impact of individual study results. With appropriate study, ultimately the use of pharmacogenomic testing can become available for children in the clinical setting.

What conditions justify risky nontherapeutic or "no benefit" pediatric studies: a sliding scale analysis

Many pediatric research regulations, including those of the United States, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Science (CIOMS), and South Africa, offer similar rules for review board approval of higher hazard studies holding out no therapeutic or direct benefit to children with disorders or conditions (See Table 1). Authorization requires gaining parental permissions and the children’s assent, if that is possible, and showing that these studies are intended to gain vitally important and generalizable information about children’s conditions; it also requires limiting the risks of harm to no more than a “minor increase over minimal risk” and showing the study is commensurable with the children’s experiences. For convenience, these investigations will be called “no benefit, higher hazard” studies.

Despite the existence of these policies for decades, studies show that review boards’ judgments vary about what “no benefit, higher hazard” studies should be approved.