1
|
Butler CR, Appelbaum PS, Ascani H, Aulisio M, Campbell CE, de Boer IH, Dighe AL, Hall DE, Himmelfarb J, Knight R, Mehl K, Murugan R, Rosas SE, Sedor JR, O'Toole JF, Tuttle KR, Waikar SS, Freeman M. A Participant-Centered Approach to Understanding Risks and Benefits of Participation in Research Informed by the Kidney Precision Medicine Project. Am J Kidney Dis 2022; 80:132-138. [PMID: 34871700 PMCID: PMC9166631 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.10.006] [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] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
An understanding of the ethical underpinnings of human subjects research that involves some risk to participants without anticipated direct clinical benefit-such as the kidney biopsy procedure as part of the Kidney Precision Medicine Project (KPMP)-requires a critical examination of the risks as well as the diverse set of countervailing potential benefits to participants. This kind of deliberation has been foundational to the development and conduct of the KPMP. Herein, we use illustrative features of this research paradigm to develop a more comprehensive conceptualization of the types of benefits that may be important to research participants, including respecting pluralistic values, supporting the opportunity to act altruistically, and enhancing benefits to a participant's community. This approach may serve as a model to help researchers, ethicists, and regulators to identify opportunities to better respect and support participants in future research that entails some risk to these participants as well as to improve the quality of research for people with kidney disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine R Butler
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine and the Kidney Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Seattle-Denver Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington.
| | - Paul S Appelbaum
- Department of Psychiatry, Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York; New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York
| | - Heather Ascani
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Mark Aulisio
- Department of Bioethics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; Center for Biomedical Ethics, MetroHealth System, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Catherine E Campbell
- Kidney Precision Medicine Project Patient Partner, American Association of Kidney Patients, Tampa, Florida; Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society, Case Management Society of America, AARP Volunteer Nursing Leadership Board
| | - Ian H de Boer
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine and the Kidney Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Ashveena L Dighe
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine and the Kidney Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Daniel E Hall
- Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Wolff Center at UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion and Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Jonathan Himmelfarb
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine and the Kidney Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Richard Knight
- Kidney Precision Medicine Project Patient Partner, American Association of Kidney Patients, Tampa, Florida; American Association of Kidney Patients, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Karla Mehl
- Division of Nephrology, Irving Medical Center, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Raghavan Murugan
- Center for Critical Care Nephrology, Department of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Sylvia E Rosas
- Kidney and Hypertension Unit, Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - John R Sedor
- Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Glickman Urological and Kidney and Lerner Research Institutes, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - John F O'Toole
- Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Glickman Urological and Kidney and Lerner Research Institutes, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Katherine R Tuttle
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine and the Kidney Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Sushrut S Waikar
- Section of Nephrology, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Michael Freeman
- Division of Pediatric Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Pediatrics and Humanities, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Robertson C. The Ethics of Research That May Disadvantage Others. Ethics Hum Res 2021; 43:2-16. [PMID: 33463075 DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500074] [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] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
In prospective interventional research, a treatment may provide an advantage for the recipient over other people who do not receive it. If the intervention proves successful, the treated are better able to compete for such things as a scarce ventilator, a class grade, or a litigation outcome, potentially risking the deaths, jobs, or incomes of nontreated persons. Discussions of ethical concerns related to "bystanders" have typically focused on direct harms (such as infecting them with a virus), rather than the competition for a rivalrous good (such as a ventilator or clinical outcome). After broadly scoping this problem of advantage, this article reveals several reasons that such interventional research is typically permissible, notwithstanding the potential setbacks to nonparticipants. I consider the almost-dispositive concept of clinical equipoise and then glean insights from the harm principle, status quo bias, the leveling-down problem, and a potential bias against prospective interventional research versus program interventions with retrospective study. My consideration of institutional relationships does not change the analysis that such research is permissible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Robertson
- N. Neal Pike Scholar and a professor of law in the School of Law at Boston University
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
Phase 1 healthy volunteer clinical trials-which financially compensate subjects in tests of drug toxicity levels and side effects-appear to place pressure on each joint of the moral framework justifying research. In this article, we review concerns about phase 1 trials as they have been framed in the bioethics literature, including undue inducement and coercion, unjust exploitation, and worries about compromised data validity. We then revisit these concerns in light of the lived experiences of serial participants who are income-dependent on phase 1 trials. We show how participant experiences shift attention from discrete exchanges, behaviors, and events in the research enterprise to the ongoing and dynamic patterns of serial participation in which individual decision-making is embedded in collective social and economic conditions and shaped by institutional policies. We argue in particular for the ethical significance of structurally diminished voluntariness, routine powerlessness in setting the terms of exchange, and incentive structures that may promote pharmaceutical interests but encourage phase 1 healthy volunteers to skirt important rules.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Walker
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Jill A Fisher
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|