COVID-19 and the Emerging Regulatory Guidance for Ongoing Clinical Trials in the European Union

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic and the accompanying control measures have significantly affected clinical trial (CT) conduct, and sponsors have needed to make rapid changes to their CT operations. As a result, regulatory guidance was pivotal during the initial phases of the pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate the regulatory readiness and guidance related to COVID‐19 in the European Union (EU). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and national competent authorities’ (NCAs') websites were searched in September and October 2020 for guidances on the management of CTs during the pandemic published from January 2020 onward. “Regulatory readiness” was defined as the number of days from the first European COVID‐19 case (January 24, 2020) to the first published guidance by the respective NCA. “Regulatory guidance” was evaluated by coding the guidances for the following predefined operational trial activities important for ongoing CTs: obtaining informed consent, participant information, clinic visits, home health visits, telemedicine visits, self‐monitoring, investigational medicinal product (IMP) supply, IMP adherence monitoring, CT monitoring, documentation management, regulatory management, and safety management. Twenty‐four of the 27 EU NCAs published country‐specific guidance. The time from the first European COVID‐19 case to the first published EMA guidance was 56 days and ranged from 47 to 66 days for the first national guidances. Guidance was provided most frequently for regulatory management (24/24), safety management (23/24), documentation management (22/24), and CT monitoring (22/24). The regulatory guidance provided during the pandemic, ensuring participant safety and data integrity, may now be the starting point to innovate future CT conduct.

Non-physician-assisted suicide in The Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey among the general public

CONTEXT

In The Netherlands, approximately 45% of patients' requests for euthanasia are granted by a physician. After a rejected request, some patients approach non-physicians and ask them for assistance in suicide. Recently, a non-physician who assisted his mother's suicide was declared guilty without punishment.

AIM

The aim of the current study was to investigate the opinion of the Dutch general public on non-physician-assisted suicide.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey among the Dutch general public was performed. A total of 1113 respondents were included (response rate 80%). The survey covered two case descriptions in which a patient asks a non-physician for assisted suicide after a non-granted request for physician-assisted dying. In both cases, a son, friend or professional facilitates the suicide by either the provision of information or the purchase of lethal medication. Respondents were invited to give their opinion on these cases and in addition on 10 propositions on non-physician-assisted suicide.

RESULTS

When a son provides information on how to acquire lethal medication in case of a patient with a terminal illness, this involvement is accepted by 62% of the respondents. The actual purchase of lethal medication receives less support (38%). If the patient suffers without a serious disease, both forms of assistance are less accepted (46% and 24%, respectively). In addition, only 21% support the legalisation of non-physician-assisted suicide. The Dutch public prefer involvement of a physician in assisted suicide (69%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Dutch general public consider non-physician-assisted suicide in some specific cases a tolerable alternative for patients with a rejected request for physician-assisted dying if the assistance is limited to the provision of information. However, the majority do not support the legalisation of non-physician-assisted suicide.