1 / 29

Ethical issues in clinical trials

Ethical issues in clinical trials. Bernard Lo, M.D. bernie@medicine.ucsf.edu. RCT to prevent nephropathy in Type 2 diabetes (1998). ACE effective in Type I Some smaller studies in Type II Many physicians already using ACE. Ethical issues in clinical trials.

candice-chaney
Télécharger la présentation

Ethical issues in clinical trials

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ethical issues in clinical trials Bernard Lo, M.D. bernie@medicine.ucsf.edu

  2. RCT to prevent nephropathy in Type 2 diabetes (1998) • ACE effective in Type I • Some smaller studies in Type II • Many physicians already using ACE

  3. Ethical issues in clinical trials • (Moving from animal to human studies) • Choice of intervention and control • Placebo or active control? • ACE inhibitor or ARB? • (Background intervention) • Is standard care adequate?

  4. Ethical issues in clinical trials • Randomization • (Design issues) • Selection of participants • Endpoints

  5. Ethical issues in clinical trials • Data and Safety Monitoring • Publication of results

  6. Ethical concerns about clinical trials • Benefits and risks uncertain • Decisions not individualized to benefit participant • Treatment by randomization and protocol • Benefit primarily to future patients • Participants misunderstand

  7. Ethical guidelines:Belmont Report (1979) • Respect for persons • Free and informed consent • Beneficence • Risks must be minimized and proportional to benefits • Independent review by IRB (and DSMB)

  8. Ethical guidelines:Belmont Report (1979) • Justice • Not exploit vulnerable populations • Access to interventions after trial

  9. What is ethical concern about randomization? • In clinical care, MD recommends what is best for individual patient • Participants do not understand

  10. When is randomization justified?Three levels of equipoise • Experts disagree or uncertain • Current evidence inconclusive or conflicting • Uncertainty about particular population • No serious harm to participants • IRB may approve

  11. Three levels of equipoise • Clinicians may not recommend or enroll participants if judges one arm superior • From evidence and judgment • For individual patient, one arm preferable • Participant must consent • Must know about standard therapy or access to study agent outside of trial

  12. Questions?

  13. VIGOR (11/2000) • Fewer GI side effects on rofecoxib than naproxen (2.1 vs. 4.5) • More Mis on refecoxib (0.4 vs 0.1) • Attributed to protective effect of naproxen

  14. VIGOR adverse effects • 3 additional MIs on refecoxib • Reported to FDA before publication • Known to 2 employee / authors • Not reported to academic authors or to NEJM

  15. Role of NEJM • NEJM aware of discrepancy 8/01 • Did not publish letter • Did not ask authors to respond • Reprint income $697,000 to NEJM

  16. APPROVe study (2/05) • Thrombotic events 1.50 on rofecoxib vs. 0.78 on placebo • Led to voluntary withdrawal of drug • Increased risk after 18 months • Defense to lawsuits

  17. Selection of endpoint in APPROVe • Count only events while on Rx or up to 14 days after stopping • Academic authors claimed they were just following the protocol

  18. APPROVe problems • Presented all events to FDA 5/06 • Curves diverge at 4 months, not 18

  19. Peer review with APPROVe • “Aggressively promotes safety of up to 18 months of use … beyond the data of the study” • “Hand of sponsor is too evident .. Written consistently in manner designed to support the company’s public positions.”

  20. Peer review with APPROVe • Journal originally asked authors to drop references to 18 months

  21. Concerns raised by APPROVe • Withholding of negative data • Bias in design and analysis • Responsibilities of sponsors, authors, journals

  22. Conflicts of interest • “Drug companies have to continue to be successful businesses… But their primary mission is products that save lives and improve lives.” • “This is an area that’s different from ice cream, bubble gum, and automobiles.”

  23. Business relationship • Self-interest in profit • Caveat emptor • Do not call attention to shortcomings • May overstate benefits

  24. Fiduciary relationship for MDs • Illness makes patients vulnerable • Physicians have expertise • Reliance and trust • Act in patient’s interest, not self-interest or interest of 3rd parties

  25. Responses to conflicts of interest • Disclose • To institution, IRB, participants, journal • Manage • Investigators in clinical trial should not have significant financial interest

  26. Responses to conflicts of interest • Forbid certain actions or situations • Sponsor may not restrict author’s • Access to data • Control over data analysis • Freedom to publish

  27. Take home message • Ethical issues are inherent in human participants research • Investigators, referring clinicians, readers need to be aware of ethical issues and how to resolve them

More Related