July 3, 2019: New Article Describes the Public’s Beliefs Regarding Responsibility to Participate in Research

Findings from a new article suggest that the majority of patients do not feel a personal responsibility to participate in clinical research. In the article, Kevin Weinfurt, Li Lin, and Jeremy Sugarman report the results of a national survey of nearly 3000 people regarding their attitudes towards research responsibilities as well as their trust in doctors, healthcare systems, and medical research. Ethical frameworks for learning health systems have suggested that patients have a responsibility to contribute to learning activities, including research. The findings from this survey suggest that most patients in the U.S. do not currently endorse such a responsibility.

“These data provide a useful snapshot of the public’s views toward the obligation to participate in research. It is unclear how, if at all, these views will shift with increased efforts to create mature learning health systems. And if such views do not shift, it is uncertain what that would mean for the success of learning health systems.” —Kevin Weinfurt, PhD

Read the full article: Public Views Regarding the Responsibility of Patients, Clinicians, and Institutions to Participate in Research in the U.S.

For more on alternate approaches to consent, see the Living Textbook Chapter on Consent, Disclosure, and Non-Disclosure

June 14, 2019: Good Clinical Practice Guidance and Pragmatic Trials: Balancing the Best of Both Worlds in the Learning Health System (Robert Mentz, MD)

Speaker

Robert J. Mentz, MD, FACC, FAHA, FHFSA
Associate Professor
Director, Duke Cooperative Cardiovascular Society
Associate Program Director, Duke Cardiovascular Disease Fellowship
Duke University Medical Center and Duke Clinical Research Institute

Topic

Good Clinical Practice Guidance and Pragmatic Trials: Balancing the Best of Both Worlds in the Learning Health System

Keywords

International Council for Harmonization (ICH); Good clinical practice (GCP); Learning health system; Pragmatic clinical trials; Institutional review board (IRB); Research oversight; Regulatory issues; Quality by design (QbD)

Key Points

  • Good clinical practice (GCP) guidance details the responsibilities, procedures, and recording that are necessary for appropriate trial conduct; for example, conducting the trial in accordance with an IRB-approved protocol with appropriate adverse event monitoring and reporting.
  • There is an urgent need to streamline randomized trials. Key obstacles are lack of transparency, lack of representativeness, and lack of evidence of competence.
  • In the United States, clinical investigators must abide by guidance from FDA, HHS, and ICH-GCP. Yet it is hard for investigators to keep track and to know how GCP applies to their study.
  • GCP as an overall construct is useful, but it does not deal well with issues particular to pragmatic trials or trials outside the FDA-regulated world.

Discussion Themes

With embedded pragmatic trials, informed consent is more nuanced. New considerations and approaches for consent have arisen since ICH GCP first came into effect.

Establishing quality by design will take time, effort, and educating IRBs to understand how QbD can be used to avoid errors in a trial and collect data that is fit-for-purpose.

It’s crucial that trials address an important question, answer that question reliably, and keep participants safe.

Read more about Dr. Mentz’s study of GCP and pragmatic trials.

Tags

#pctGR, @Collaboratory1, @RobMentz

October 9, 2018: New Recommendations for Engaging Patients in Roles Other Than as Research Subjects

A panel funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) recently published recommendations for the oversight of patients who participate in research roles other than as “research subject.” Patients and caregivers participate in many roles, such as co-investigators, study personnel, and advisors in research studies, and this creates novel ethical and regulatory challenges. The panel provides a taxonomy for these roles and recommendations for appropriate oversight. The group also provides recommendations about identifying and engaging a diverse mix of patients and developing mechanisms to protect against possible conflicts of interest. Finally, given the ubiquity of mobile health and other emerging technologies for use by patients, the recommendations provide guidance about the inclusion of these technologies in patient-centered outcomes research, with specific attention to education, best practices, and appropriate privacy protections.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Robert Califf expressed his support for the panel’s efforts and their taxonomy for patients in patient-centered outcomes research:

“Given the persistent gap between the slow pace of research and the pressing need for high-quality evidence to guide practice in areas of clinical uncertainty on one hand, and the potential offered by more pragmatic, people-centered research methods on the other, we need positive approaches for making learning through research a routine part of clinical care rather than an exceptional event.”

 

September 28, 2018: Assessing and Reducing Risk of Re-identification When Sharing Sensitive Research Datasets (Greg Simon, MD, MPH, Deven McGraw, JD, MPH, Khaled El Emam, PhD)

Speakers

Gregory Simon MD, MPH
Investigator, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute

Deven McGraw, JD, MPH, LLM
General Counsel & Chief Regulatory Officer, Ciitizen

Khaled El Emam, PhD
Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa
Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute

Topic

Assessing and Reducing Risk of Re-identification When Sharing Sensitive Research Datasets

Keywords

Clinical trials; Research ethics; Data security; Data sharing; Sensitive research data; De-identified data

Key Points

  • The cycle of risk de-identification involves setting a risk threshold, measuring the risk, evaluating the risk, and applying transformations to reduce the risk.
  • The Safe Harbor method of de-identification (removal of 18 categories of data) is a legal minimum standard that does not take context into account, and may not be sufficient when sharing sensitive data publicly.
  • A higher standard for de-identification is the “Expert Determination” method, whereby an expert with contextual knowledge of the broader data ecosystem can determine whether the risk is “not greater than very small.”
  • With increasing concern about the risks of sensitive data sharing, it is important to be transparent with data participants and continue to build trust for data uses.

Discussion Themes

When is a dataset safe for sharing? What is the risk of re-identification, and how can we reduce the risk? Consider who you are releasing the data to and what other kinds of data might they have access to that could potentially lead to re-identification.

For more information on the de-identification of protected health information, visit the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s Guidance Regarding Methods for De-identification of Protected Health Information in Accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule.

The Health Information Trust Alliance de-identification framework identifies 12 criteria for a successful de-identification program and methodology.

Tags

#pctGR, #PragmaticTrials, #HealthData, @HealthPrivacy @Collaboratory1, @PCTGrandRounds

January 18, 2018: Implementation of Revised Common Rule Delayed

On January 17, 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services and 15 other federal departments and agencies announced a delay to both the effective and compliance dates for the revisions to the “Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” (also known as the Common Rule). Most provisions in the revised Common Rule were scheduled to go into effect on January 19, 2018. The Interim Final Rule announced a delay until July 19, 2018, with the option for further delay, to give institutions additional time to prepare to implement the revisions. Before July 19, 2018, institutions may only begin implementing provisions of the revised Common Rule that do not conflict with the pre-2018 Common Rule.

A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is also in development to seek public comment on a proposal for further delay in the required implementation of the revised Common Rule (for example, until January 21, 2019). A decision will be made after considering public comments.

November 20, 2017: NIH Collaboratory Core Working Group Interviews: Reflections from the Ethics and Regulatory Core

We recently asked Drs. Jeremy Sugarman and Kevin Weinfurt, Co-chairs of the Ethics and Regulatory Core, to reflect on the first 5 years of the Core as well as on the challenges ahead. The regulatory and ethical landscape for pragmatic clinical trials was not well defined when the Core began 5 years ago, and the Core helped to map and navigate the emerging landscape to enable the implementation of Demonstration Projects in ways that satisfied ethical and regulatory criteria.

“The Core’s work has led to the creation of a substantial body of scholarship contributing to the ongoing policy and ethics debates about pragmatic clinical trials.” – Drs. Sugarman and Weinfurt

Download the interview (PDF).

Recent Collaboratory Publications on Research Ethics


The American Journal of Bioethics has recently published three articles authored by members of the Regulatory/Ethics core group describing various questions related to research on medical practices:

  • Is shared decision making an appropriate analytic frame for research on medical practices (Sugarman 2015) discusses the role of shared decision making (SDM) in research on medical practices. The author cautions that “while SDM is in many ways similar to informed consent, there are some important differences, especially in the research setting.” This publication is freely accessible through PubMed Central.
  • Patients’ views concerning research on medical practices: implications for consent (Weinfurt et al. 2015) describes the results of focus group sessions that elicited a range of patients’ views and opinions about different types of research on usual medical practices. The authors state that “our data suggest that effective policy and guidance will involve balancing different patients’ interests and potentially different sets of interests for different types of research studies on usual medical practices.”
  • Ethics of research in usual care settings: data on point (Sugarman 2016) introduces a special five-article supplement in the American Journal of Bioethics, stating that the “growing empirical ethics literature regarding research in usual care settings provides data to inform conceptual and policy debates regarding this research and suggests areas that require further study.”

These publications were supported by a bioethics supplement awarded to the Regulatory/Ethics Core group by the NIH’s Office of the Director.


Upcoming CTTI Webinar on Informed Consent Recommendations


CTTI-logo-127x100The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative’s Informed Consent Project will unveil recommendations and associated resources for informed consent on Thursday, November 19.

Presenters include Jennifer Lentz, Global Informed Consent Process Owner in Global Clinical Operations at Eli Lilly and Company, and Michele Kennett, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research and Director of the Institutional Review Board at the University of Missouri.

Topic: Informed Consent Project Recommendations
• Date: Thursday, November 19, 2015
• Time: 12 – 1 pm EST

To join the public webinar:
 
Meeting Number: 732 884 847 
Meeting Password: ctti 

After you connect to the website, please follow step-by-step instructions for connecting to the audio. If you prefer to connect to audio only, you can join by phone at:

1-855-244-8681 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada) 
1-650-479-3207 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)

Modernizing the Common Rule for the 21st Century


The New England Journal of Medicine today published a perspective by NIH Deputy Directory Kathy L. Hudson, PhD, and NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, in which they outline the major reforms proposed for regulations governing the ethical conduct of research involving humans, known as the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A).

The proposed changes are meant to enhance respect for research participants, calibrate oversight to level of risk, simplify consent documents, streamline IRB review, increase privacy and security safeguards, and facilitate broad participation in research.

“These long-overdue reforms will bring the Common Rule into the 21st century. They should help the scientific community take a giant leap forward in showing respect for research participants, without whom the biomedical research enterprise would cease to exist.”

The NIH is encouraging all stakeholders—the public, researchers, and patients—to closely review the proposed changes and participate in the comment process by the December 7, 2015, deadline.

For more information on the proposed revisions:

Grand Rounds Presentation, Kathy Hudson (video)

Department of Health and Human Services' website on the NPRM 

OHRP Webinars on the NPRM

Living Textbook Chapter: Informed Consent: Emerging Issues and Controversies

OHRP Town Hall Meeting to Discuss NPRM


The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) has announced a public Town Hall Meeting to be held October 20, 2015, to respond to questions related to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 8, 2015.

The goal of the NPRM is to modernize, strengthen, and make more effective the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects that was promulgated as a Common Rule in 1991. The NPRM seeks comments on proposals to better protect human subjects involved in research, while facilitating valuable research and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators.

The purpose of the Town Hall Meeting (agenda) is for OHRP, HHS agencies, and other Common Rule departments and agencies to provide responses to questions from the public about the NPRM in order to clarify the NPRM proposals and better inform public comment on the NPRM. The public will be able to ask questions during the Town Hall Meeting, and to submit questions before the meeting. Watch via webinar.

Public Town Hall Meeting 
October 20, 2015, 9 am to 5 pm
Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Great Hall
200 Independence Ave SW
Washington, DC 20201

This PDF document (#2015-25564) contains details about the format of the public Town Hall Meeting and how to register or submit questions prior to the meeting.

Important deadlines:

  • While there is no registration fee, individuals planning to attend the Town Hall in person must register by 5:00 pm October 13, 2015. Registration will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis and may be completed by sending an email to OHRP@hhs.gov, with the subject line “Registration for OHRP Town Hall Meeting.”
  • The deadline for submission of questions about the NPRM prior to the Town Hall Meeting must be received no later than 5:00 pm October 13, 2015.
  • Details on the NPRM are at the OHRP website. To be assured consideration, comments on the NPRM must be received no later than the extended deadline of January 6, 2016.