Informed Consent to Study Purpose in Randomized Clinical Trials of Antibiotics, 1991 Through 2011

JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177(10): 1-8.
Authors: Peter Doshi, Peter Hur, Mark Jones, et al
“Patients were not accurately informed of study purpose, which raises questions regarding the ethics of informed consent in antibiotic trials. Noninferiority and superiority trials entail different benefit-harm trade-offs that must be conveyed for ethical informed consent.”
Find article here.

Written versus verbal consent: a qualitative study of stakeholder views of consent procedures used at the time of recruitment into a peripartum trial conducted in an emergency setting

BMC Medical Ethics 2017 18:36
Authors: J. Lawton, N. Hallowell, C. Snowdon, J. E. Norman, K. Carruthers, F. C. Denison
“Obtaining prospective written consent from women to participate in trials when they are experiencing an obstetric emergency is challenging. Alternative consent pathways, such as gaining verbal consent at enrolment followed, later, by obtaining written consent, have been advocated by some clinicians and bioethicists but have received little empirical attention.”
Find article here.

The Ethics of Clinical Trials Research in Severe Mood Disorders

Bioethics. May 2017. doi:10.1111/bioe.12349
Authors: Nugent, A. C., Miller, F. G., Henter, I. D. and Zarate, C. A.
“Mood disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD), are highly prevalent, frequently disabling, and sometimes deadly. Additional research and more effective medications are desperately needed, but clinical trials research in mood disorders is fraught with ethical issues. Although many authors have discussed these issues, most do so from a theoretical viewpoint. This manuscript uses available empirical data to inform a discussion of the primary ethical issues raised in mood disorders research.”
Find article here.

How Do We Protect Patients From False Promises In Right-To-Try Laws?

Health Affairs Blog, 14 March 2017
Author: Ellen Sigal
“Unfortunately, the current federal legislation provides almost no protections for patients. Everyone with a late-stage terminal illness like my sister deserves the chance to try an experimental therapy. However, serious changes to today’s legislative proposal are needed before this law is safe for patients.”
Find article here.

Patients Demand The ‘Right To Try’ Experimental Drugs, But Costs Can Be Steep

NPR, 3 March 2017
Author: Carrie Feibel
“In the last three years, 33 U.S. states have passed laws aimed at helping dying people get easier access to experimental treatments that are still in the early stages of human testing. Supporters say these patients are just looking for the right to try these treatments. Such laws sound compassionate, but medical ethicists warn they pose worrisome risks to the health and finances of vulnerable patients.”
Find article here.

How to Keep HIV Cure-Related Trials Ethical: The Benefit/Risk Ratio Challenge

JME Blog, 20 February 2017
Author: Nir Eyal
“While high or unknown risks are a mainstay of early-phase trials in areas like cancer research, cure study participants typically have a safe and efficacious alternative to those risks: remaining on antiretrovirals. Can we justify asking patients who are doing well on antiretrovirals to accept the risk and uncertainty of many HIV cure-related trials? If we cannot, we might need to give up on the hope of curing HIV, or of achieving controlled remission.”
Find article here.

A Call For The FDA To Raise The Bar For Clinical Trials Is Flawed

Forbes, 22 February 2017
Author: John LaMattina
“As the new Trump administration begins to take shape, there are concerns that new leadership at the FDA will call for less bureaucracy and red tape, thereby lowering the bar for new drug approvals. The view is that onerous regulations are preventing life-saving medications from getting to those who most need them. Lowering the standards for drug approvals may indeed allow for earlier patient access to drugs but, as has been discussed here in the past, liberalization of current regulations would be a mistake. Such actions will unleash drugs that will ultimately prove to be ineffective and, in some cases, harmful rather than beneficial.”
Find article here.

Paid protection? Ethics of incentivised long-acting reversible contraception in adolescents with alcohol and other drug use

Journal of Medical Ethics 2017;43:182-187.
Authors: Won T, Blumenthal-Barby J, Chacko M
“Pregnant adolescents have a higher risk of poor maternal and fetal outcomes, particularly in the setting of concomitant maternal alcohol and other drug (AOD) use. Despite numerous programmes aimed at reducing overall teen pregnancy rates and the recognition of AOD use as a risk factor for unintended pregnancy in adolescents, interventions targeting this specific group have been sparse. In adult drug-using women, financial incentives for contraception have been provided but are ethically controversial. This article explores whether a trial could ethically employ monetary incentives in adolescents with AOD use to promote the use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), with special attention to the relevant distinctions between adults and adolescents.”
Find article here.

Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study

BMJ 2017; 356:i6770
Authors: Rosa Ahn, Alexandra Woodbridge, Ann Abraham, Susan Saba et al
“Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the most reliable form of evidence in evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs. Because results of RCTs shape the evidence base, objectivity in the conduct of clinical trials has important implications for clinical practice and the health and safety of patients. However, critics worry that involvement of the pharmaceutical industry may bias the design and interpretation of RCTs.”
Find article here.