1
|
Abstract
Through the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019 (2019 Rules), India has developed the rules governing post-trial access (PTA) to new drugs or investigational new drugs. However, inconsistencies and interpretational challenges exist in the application of the 2019 Rules and the Indian Council of Medical Research Guidelines 2017. This conflation poses a real harm to the trial participants, specifically the ones with limited access to healthcare facilities. Since drug laws in India do not expressly deal with other forms of access like the 'Compassionate Use' or 'Expanded Access' mechanism, demarcating the scope and describing the strategies for PTA are the need of the hour. We propose possible strategies to address inadequacies in the regulatory regime and establish 'win-win' situations among all stakeholders. We further argue that India is well positioned to provide leadership by developing detailed PTA provisions and may set a potential path for the other clinical trial host countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nidhi Mehrotra
- Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India
| | - Padmavati Manchikanti
- Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jacobs E, Murphy-Beiner A, Rouiller I, Nutt D, Spriggs MJ. When the Trial Ends: The Case for Post-Trial Provisions in Clinical Psychedelic Research. NEUROETHICS-NETH 2023; 17:3. [PMID: 37942467 PMCID: PMC10627912 DOI: 10.1007/s12152-023-09536-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2023] [Accepted: 10/03/2023] [Indexed: 11/10/2023]
Abstract
The ethical value-and to some scholars, necessity-of providing trial patients with post-trial access (PTA) to an investigational drug has been subject to significant attention in the field of research ethics. Although no consensus has emerged, it seems clear that, in some trial contexts, various factors make PTA particularly appropriate. We outline the atypical aspects of psychedelic clinical trials that support the case for introducing the provision of PTA within research in this field, including the broader legal status of psychedelics, the nature of the researcher-therapist/participant relationship, and the extended time-frame of the full therapeutic process. As is increasingly understood, the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is driven as much by extrapharmacological elements and the cultural therapeutic container as by the drug itself. As such, we also advocate for a refocusing of attention from post-trial access to a broader concept encompassing other elements of post-trial care. We provide an overview of some of the potential post-trial care provisions that may be appropriate in psychedelic clinical trials. Although the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki calls on researchers, sponsors, and governments to make provisions for post-trial access, such provision may feel impracticable or out-of-reach within psychedelic trials that are already constrained by a high resource demand and significant bureaucratic burden. We show how conceiving of post-trial provision as an integral site of the research process, and an appropriate destination for research funding, will serve to develop the infrastructure necessary for the post-legalisation psychedelic medicine ecosystem.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward Jacobs
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ashleigh Murphy-Beiner
- Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway University, London, UK
| | - Ian Rouiller
- Psychedelic Participant Advocacy Network (PsyPAN), London, UK
| | - David Nutt
- Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Meg J. Spriggs
- Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Choko AT, Roshandel G, Conserve DF, Corbett EL, Fielding K, Hemming K, Malekzadeh R, Weijer C. Ethical issues in cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries: an analysis of two case studies. Trials 2020; 21:314. [PMID: 32295604 PMCID: PMC7161096 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04269-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cluster randomized trials are common in health research in low- and middle-income countries raising issues that challenge interpretation of standard ethical guidelines. While the Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials provides guidance for researchers and research ethics committees, it does not explicitly focus on low- and middle-income settings. MAIN BODY In this paper, we use the lens of the Ottawa Statement to analyze two cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income settings in order to identify gaps or ethical issues requiring further analysis and guidance. The PolyIran trial was a parallel-arm, cluster trial examining the effectiveness of a polypill for prevention of cardiovascular disease in Golestan province, Iran. The PASTAL trial was an adaptive, multistage, parallel-arm, cluster trial evaluating the effect of incentives for human immunodeficiency virus self-testing and follow-up on male partners of pregnant women in Malawi. Through an in-depth case analysis of these two studies we highlight several issues in need of further exploration. First, standards for verbal consent and waivers of consent require methods for operationalization if they are to be employed consistently. Second, the appropriate choice of a control arm remains contentious. Particularly in the case of implementation interventions, locally available care is required as the comparator to address questions of comparative effectiveness. However, locally available care might be lower than standards set out in national guidelines. Third, while the need for access to effective interventions post-trial is widely recognized, it is often not possible to guarantee this upfront. Clarity on what is required of researchers and sponsors is needed. Fourth, there is a pressing need for ethics education and capacity building regarding cluster randomized trials in these settings. CONCLUSION We identify four issues in cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries for which further ethical analysis and guidance is required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Augustine T Choko
- Malawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.,Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Gholamreza Roshandel
- Golestan Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran
| | - Donaldson F Conserve
- Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behaviour, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA
| | - Elizabeth L Corbett
- Malawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.,Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Katherine Fielding
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Karla Hemming
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Reza Malekzadeh
- Digestive Disease Research Center, Digestive Diseases Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Charles Weijer
- Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Iunes R, Uribe MV, Torres JB, Garcia MM, Alvares-Teodoro J, de Assis Acurcio F, Junior AAG. Who should pay for the continuity of post-trial health care treatments? Int J Equity Health 2019; 18:26. [PMID: 31155007 PMCID: PMC6545625 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-019-0919-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2018] [Accepted: 01/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The bioethical debate in the world on who should pay for the continuity of post-trials treatment of patients that have medical indication remains obscure and introduces uncertainties to the patients involved in the trials. The continuity of post-trial treatment was only incorporated in the 2000s by the Helsinki Declaration. The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, published in 2006, points out that post-trial continuity may present a broader scope than just the availability of the investigated medicine. In the latest version of this Declaration, in 2013, it was stated that “prior to the start of the clinical trial, funders, researchers and governments of the countries participating in the research should provide post-trial access for all participants who still require an intervention that was identified as beneficial. This information should also be disclosed to participants during the informed consent process”. However, a systematic review on the registration of phase III and IV clinical trials, from the clinical trials website, demonstrated that the understanding of the various guidelines and resolutions is conflicting, generating edges in the post-trial setting. For the health authorities of countries where clinical trials take place, the uncertainties about the continuity of the treatments generate gaps in care and legal proceedings against health systems, which are forced to pay for the treatments, even if they are not included in the list of medicines available to the population. Methods Fifty-one representatives from the health, judicial, legislative, patient and academic organizations of eight countries of Latin American and South Korea took part in a meeting in Chile, in 2017, to discuss the responsibility of the treatment continuation after clinical trials. From a hypothetical case of development of a new drug and its studies of efficacy and safety, the participants, divided in groups, proposed recommendations for the problem and pointed out the pros and cons of adopting each recommendation. The groups were, afterwards, confronted by a simulated jury and, finally, issued a final recommendation for the problem. Then, an analysis was made on the content of the recommendations and the pros and cons in adopting conservative or liberal positions, besides the possible impacts of a restrictive regulation regarding the conduction of clinical trials, pointed out by the groups, before and after the simulated jury. Results The theme was widely discussed and about 12 recommendations were proposed by the participants. The main ones took into account aspects related to patients’ rights, economic factors and the development of new technologies, above the position of industry and research institutes, as well as the legislation in force in each country. Conclusion The countries of Latin America and South Korea, currently, do not have laws that address patients’ rights, moreover, there is no definition on who should be responsible for post-trial treatments. It is suggested that the World Health Organization issue a resolution recommending that all associated countries determine that the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, or those that sponsored it, should continue to provide treatment to all patients who participated in clinical trials and have medical indication to the continuity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roberto Iunes
- The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA
| | | | - Janet Bonilla Torres
- The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA.,Unión Europe to communications of the ACTÚE Colombia Project, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Marina Morgado Garcia
- Department of Social Pharmacy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Presidente Antônio Carlos, 6627 - Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 31270-901, Brazil.
| | - Juliana Alvares-Teodoro
- Department of Social Pharmacy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Presidente Antônio Carlos, 6627 - Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 31270-901, Brazil
| | - Francisco de Assis Acurcio
- Department of Social Pharmacy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Presidente Antônio Carlos, 6627 - Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 31270-901, Brazil
| | - Augusto Afonso Guerra Junior
- Department of Social Pharmacy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Presidente Antônio Carlos, 6627 - Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 31270-901, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lawton J, Blackburn M, Rankin D, Werner C, Farrington C, Hovorka R, Hallowell N. Broadening the Debate About Post-trial Access to Medical Interventions: A Qualitative Study of Participant Experiences at the End of a Trial Investigating a Medical Device to Support Type 1 Diabetes Self-Management. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2019; 10:100-112. [PMID: 30986113 DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2019.1592264] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
Increasing ethical attention and debate is focusing on whether individuals who take part in clinical trials should be given access to post-trial care. However, the main focus of this debate has been upon drug trials undertaken in low-income settings. To broaden this debate, we report findings from interviews with individuals (n = 24) who participated in a clinical trial of a closed-loop system, which is a medical device under development for people with type 1 diabetes that automatically adjusts blood glucose to help keep it within clinically recommended ranges. Individuals were recruited from UK sites and interviewed following trial close-out, at which point the closed-loop had been withdrawn. While individuals were stoical and accepting of the requirement to return the closed-loop, they also conveyed varying degrees of distress. Many described having relaxed diabetes management practices while using the closed-loop and having become deskilled as a consequence, which made reverting back to pre-trial regimens challenging. Participants also described unanticipated consequences arising from using a closed-loop. As well as deskilling, these included experiencing psychological and emotional benefits that could not be sustained after the closed-loop had been withdrawn and participants reevaluating their pre- and post-trial life in light of having used a closed-loop and now perceiving this life much more negatively. Participants also voiced frustrations about experiencing better blood glucose control using a closed-loop and then having to revert to using what they now saw as antiquated and imprecise self-management tools. We use these findings to argue that ethical debates about post-trial provisioning need to be broadened to consider potential psychological and emotional harms, and not just clinical harms, that may result from withdrawal of investigated treatments. We also suggest that individuals may benefit from information about potential nonclinical harms to help make informed decisions about trial participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Lawton
- a Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics , University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh , United Kingdom
| | - M Blackburn
- a Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics , University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh , United Kingdom
| | - D Rankin
- a Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics , University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh , United Kingdom
| | - C Werner
- a Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics , University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh , United Kingdom
| | - C Farrington
- b Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research , University of Cambridge , United Kingdom
| | - R Hovorka
- c Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science , University of Cambridge , Cambridge , United Kingdom.,d Department of Paediatrics , University of Cambridge , Cambridge , United Kingdom
| | - N Hallowell
- e Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and the Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute , University of Oxford , Oxford , United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Andanda P, Wathuta J. Human dignity as a basis for providing post-trial access to healthcare for research participants: a South African perspective. Med Health Care Philos 2018; 21:139-155. [PMID: 28601920 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-017-9782-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
This paper discusses the need to focus on the dignity of human participants as a legal and ethical basis for providing post-trial access to healthcare. Debate about post-trial benefits has mostly focused on access to products or interventions proven to be effective in clinical trials. However, such access may be modelled on a broad fair benefits framework that emphasises both collateral benefits and interventional products of research, instead of prescribed post-trial access alone (Legal and ethical regulation of biomedical research in developing countries p. 134, 2016). The wording of the current version of the Declaration of Helsinki could in fact be interpreted to broaden the scope to include other collateral benefits by applying such a broad fair benefits framework. We argue that this possibility should be utilised by low and middle income countries' (LMICs) health research ethics committees (RECs) in order to ensure that research participants who enrol in clinical trials so as to receive medical care continue to access care after the trial is concluded, as befits their dignity. Although each LMIC has unique concerns, nonetheless there are common challenges based especially on emerging issues, such as post-trial access to healthcare. Accordingly, the South African perspective is used to draw lessons that can benefit other LMICs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pamela Andanda
- School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
- University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa.
| | - Jane Wathuta
- School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|