1
|
van Rijssel TI, van Thiel GJMW, van Delden JJM. The Ethics of Decentralized Clinical Trials and Informed Consent: Taking Technologies' Soft Impacts into Account. HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS 2024:10.1007/s10728-024-00483-1. [PMID: 38764063 DOI: 10.1007/s10728-024-00483-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/30/2024] [Indexed: 05/21/2024]
Abstract
Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) have the potential to advance the conduct of clinical trials, but raise several ethical issues, including obtaining valid informed consent. The debate on the ethical issues resulting from digitalization is predominantly focused on direct risks relating to for example data protection, safety, and data quality. We submit however, that a broader view on ethical aspects of DCTs is needed to touch upon the new challenges that come with the DCT practice. Digitalization has impacts that go beyond its direct purposes, by shaping behaviors, experiences, social relations, and values. We examine four elements of the informed consent procedure that are affected by DCTs, while taking these soft impacts of technologies into account: (i) informing participants and testing understanding, (ii) freedoms in relation to responsibilities and burdens, (iii) trust in participant-researcher relations, and (iv) impacts on the concept of privacy. Our analysis reveals that a broad view is key for optimal conduct of DCTs. In addition, it provides insight into the ethical impacts of DCTs on informed consent. Technologies such as DCTs potentially have profound impacts which are not immediately addressed by the existing regulatory frameworks, but nonetheless important to recognize. These findings can guide future practices of DCTs to foster the important values of clinical research in this novel approach for conducting clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tessa I van Rijssel
- Department of Bioethics and Health Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Ghislaine J M W van Thiel
- Department of Bioethics and Health Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes J M van Delden
- Department of Bioethics and Health Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Aryal S, Blankenship JM, Bachman SL, Hwang S, Zhai Y, Richards JC, Clay I, Lyden K. Patient-centricity in digital measure development: co-evolution of best practice and regulatory guidance. NPJ Digit Med 2024; 7:128. [PMID: 38755349 PMCID: PMC11099175 DOI: 10.1038/s41746-024-01110-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 04/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Digital health technologies (DHTs) have the potential to modernize drug development and clinical trial operations by remotely, passively, and continuously collecting ecologically valid evidence that is meaningful to patients' lived experiences. Such evidence holds potential for all drug development stakeholders, including regulatory agencies, as it will help create a stronger evidentiary link between approval of new therapeutics and the ultimate aim of improving patient lives. However, only a very small number of novel digital measures have matured from exploratory usage into regulatory qualification or efficacy endpoints. This shows that despite the clear potential, actually gaining regulatory agreement that a new measure is both fit-for-purpose and delivers value remains a serious challenge. One of the key stumbling blocks for developers has been the requirement to demonstrate that a digital measure is meaningful to patients. This viewpoint aims to examine the co-evolution of regulatory guidance in the United States (U.S.) and best practice for integration of DHTs into the development of clinical outcome assessments. Contextualizing guidance on meaningfulness within the larger shift towards a patient-centric drug development approach, this paper reviews the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance and existing literature surrounding the development of meaningful digital measures and patient engagement, including the recent examples of rejections by the FDA that further emphasize patient-centricity in digital measures. Finally, this paper highlights remaining hurdles and provides insights into the established frameworks for development and adoption of digital measures in clinical research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Yaya Zhai
- VivoSense Inc, Newport Coast, CA, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Binoy S, Lithwick Algon A, Ben Adiva Y, Montaser-Kouhsari L, Saban W. Online cognitive testing in Parkinson's disease: advantages and challenges. Front Neurol 2024; 15:1363513. [PMID: 38651103 PMCID: PMC11034553 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1363513] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2023] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 04/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Parkinson's disease (PD) is primarily characterized by motor symptoms. Yet, many people with PD experience cognitive decline, which is often unnoticed by clinicians, although it may have a significant impact on quality of life. For over half a century, traditional in-person PD cognitive assessment lacked accessibility, scalability, and specificity due to its inherent limitations. In this review, we propose that novel methods of online cognitive assessment could potentially address these limitations. We first outline the challenges of traditional in-person cognitive testing in PD. We then summarize the existing literature on online cognitive testing in PD. Finally, we explore the advantages, but also the limitations, of three major processes involved in online PD cognitive testing: recruitment and sampling methods, measurement and participation, and disease monitoring and management. Taking the limitations into account, we aim to highlight the potential of online cognitive testing as a more accessible and efficient approach to cognitive testing in PD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharon Binoy
- Loyola Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL, United States
- Center for Accessible Neuropsychology and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Avigail Lithwick Algon
- Center for Accessible Neuropsychology and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Yoad Ben Adiva
- Center for Accessible Neuropsychology and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Leila Montaser-Kouhsari
- Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - William Saban
- Center for Accessible Neuropsychology and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Shen FX, Baum ML, Martinez-Martin N, Miner AS, Abraham M, Brownstein CA, Cortez N, Evans BJ, Germine LT, Glahn DC, Grady C, Holm IA, Hurley EA, Kimble S, Lázaro-Muñoz G, Leary K, Marks M, Monette PJ, Jukka-Pekka O, O’Rourke PP, Rauch SL, Shachar C, Sen S, Vahia I, Vassy JL, Baker JT, Bierer BE, Silverman BC. Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2024; 24:69-90. [PMID: 37155651 PMCID: PMC10630534 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2180109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francis X. Shen
- Harvard Medical School
- Massachusetts General Hospital
- Harvard Law School
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Mason Marks
- Harvard Law School
- Florida State University College of Law
- Yale Law School
| | | | | | | | - Scott L. Rauch
- Harvard Medical School
- McLean Hospital
- Mass General Brigham
| | | | | | | | - Jason L. Vassy
- Harvard Medical School
- Brigham and Women’s Hospital
- VA Boston Healthcare System
| | | | - Barbara E. Bierer
- Harvard Medical School
- Brigham and Women’s Hospital
- Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
van Rijssel TI, van Thiel GJMW, Gardarsdottir H, van Delden JJM. Which Benefits Can Justify Risks in Research? THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2024:1-11. [PMID: 38181217 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2296404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2024]
Abstract
Research ethics committees (RECs) evaluate whether the risk-benefit ratio of a study is acceptable. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are a novel approach for conducting clinical trials that potentially bring important benefits for research, including several collateral benefits. The position of collateral benefits in risk-benefit assessments is currently unclear. DCTs raise therefore questions about how these benefits should be assessed. This paper aims to reconsider the different types of research benefits, and their position in risk-benefit assessments. We first propose a categorization of research benefits, based on the types of benefits that can be distinguished from the literature and ethical guidelines. Secondly, we will reconsider the position of collateral benefits. We argue that these benefits are not fundamentally different from other benefits of research and can therefore be included in risk-benefit assessments of DCTs.
Collapse
|
6
|
Remote cognitive assessment in severe mental illness: a scoping review. SCHIZOPHRENIA 2022; 8:14. [PMID: 35249112 PMCID: PMC8897553 DOI: 10.1038/s41537-022-00219-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Accepted: 12/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Many individuals living with severe mental illness, such as schizophrenia, present cognitive deficits and reasoning biases negatively impacting clinical and functional trajectories. Remote cognitive assessment presents many opportunities for advancing research and treatment but has yet to be widely used in psychiatric populations. We conducted a scoping review of remote cognitive assessment in severe mental illness to provide an overview of available measures and guide best practices. Overall, 34 studies (n = 20,813 clinical participants) were reviewed and remote measures, psychometrics, facilitators, barriers, and future directions were synthesized using a logic model. We identified 82 measures assessing cognition in severe mental illness across 11 cognitive domains and four device platforms. Remote measures were generally comparable to traditional versions, though psychometric properties were infrequently reported. Facilitators included standardized procedures and wider recruitment, whereas barriers included imprecise measure adaptations, technology inaccessibility, low patient engagement, and poor digital literacy. Our review identified several remote cognitive measures in psychiatry across all cognitive domains. However, there is a need for more rigorous validation of these measures and consideration of potentially influential factors, such as sex and gender. We provide recommendations for conducting remote cognitive assessment in psychiatry and fostering high-quality research using digital technologies.
Collapse
|
7
|
Ethics review of decentralized clinical trials (DCTs): Results of a mock ethics review. Drug Discov Today 2022; 27:103326. [PMID: 35870693 DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2022.07.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2022] [Revised: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 07/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) can be a valuable addition to the clinical trial landscape. However, the practice of DCTs is dependent on a regulatory system designed for conventional (site-based) trials. This study provides insight into the ethics review of DCTs. A 'mock ethics review' was performed in which members of European ethics committees (ECs) and national competent authorities (NCAs) discussed and reviewed a DCT protocol. Respondents expressed hesitancy toward DCTs and focused on potential risks and burdens. We advise to address these aspects explicitly when submitting a DCT protocol. We propose that both the benefits and risks of DCTs should be carefully monitored to advance the review and practice of this innovative approach to ethically optimize drug development.
Collapse
|