Clinical trialist perspectives on the ethics of adaptive clinical trials: a mixed-methods analysis

BMC Medical Ethics

Michael D Fetters¹  William G Barsan⁶  Donald A Berry⁴  Valerie L Durkalski³  Roger J Lewis⁴  Shirley Frederiksen²  William J Meurer⁵  Laurie J Legocki¹ 

[1] Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor MI 48109, USA;Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;Division of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA;Berry Consultants, Austin, TX, USA;Departments of Emergency Medicine and Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

关键词: Equipoise;    Informed consent;    Neurological emergency;    Emergency medicine;    Qualitative research;    Clinical trials;    Visual analogue scale;    Ethics;    Mixed methods;    Adaptive clinical trials;   

Others  :  1207619
DOI  :  10.1186/s12910-015-0022-z

 received in 2014-08-04, accepted in 2015-04-23,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

In an adaptive clinical trial (ACT), key trial characteristics may be altered during the course of the trial according to predefined rules in response to information that accumulates within the trial itself. In addition to having distinguishing scientific features, adaptive trials also may involve ethical considerations that differ from more traditional randomized trials. Better understanding of clinical trial experts’ views about the ethical aspects of adaptive designs could assist those planning ACTs. Our aim was to elucidate the opinions of clinical trial experts regarding their beliefs about ethical aspects of ACTs.

Methods

We used a convergent, mixed-methods design employing a 22-item ACTs beliefs survey with visual analog scales and open-ended questions and mini-focus groups. We developed a coding scheme to conduct thematic searches of textual data, depicted responses to visual analog scales on box-plot diagrams, and integrated findings thematically. Fifty-three clinical trial experts from four constituent groups participated: academic biostatisticians (n = 5); consultant biostatisticians (n = 6); academic clinicians (n = 22); and other stakeholders including patient advocacy, National Institutes of Health, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration representatives (n = 20).

Results

The respondents recognized potential ethical benefits of ACTs, including a higher probability of receiving an effective intervention for participants, optimizing resource utilization, and accelerating treatment discovery. Ethical challenges voiced include developing procedures so trial participants can make informed decisions about taking part in ACTs and plausible, though unlikely risks of research personnel altering enrollment patterns.

Conclusions

Clinical trial experts recognize ethical advantages but also pose potential ethical challenges of ACTs. The four constituencies differ in their weighing of ACT ethical considerations based on their professional vantage points. These data suggest further discussion about the ethics of ACTs is needed to facilitate ACT planning, design and conduct, and ultimately better allow planners to weigh ethical implications of competing trial designs.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Legocki et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sibbald B, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials. Why are randomised controlled trials important? BMJ. 1998;316(7126):201.
• [2]Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of clinical trials: Springer; New York, NY. 2010.
• [3]Woodbury-Harris KM, Coull BM. Clinical trials in the neurosciences. Karger, Basel ; New York; 2009.
• [4]Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201790.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2010.
• [5]Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, Müller P. Bayesian adaptive methods for clinical trials, Chapman Hall/CRC Biostatistics Series. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL; 2010.
• [6]Dragalin V. Adaptive designs: terminology and classification. Drug Inform J. 2006; 40(4):425-35.
• [7]Krams M, Lees KR, Berry DA. The past is the future. Stroke. 2005; 36(6):1341-7.
• [8]Gallo P, Chuang-Stein C, Dragalin V, Gaydos B, Krams M, Pinheiro J. Adaptive designs in clinical drug development" an executive summary of the PhRMA working group. J Biopharm Stat. 2006; 16(3):275.
• [9]POCOCK SJ. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika. 1977; 64(2):191-9.
• [10]Meurer WJ, Lewis RJ, Berry DA. Adaptive clinical trials a partial remedy for the therapeutic misconception? JAMA. 2012; 307(22):2377-8.
• [11]Coffey C, Kairalla J. Adaptive clinical trials. Drugs R D. 2008; 9(4):229-42.
• [12]National Commission for the Proptection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research Bethesda MD., Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.): The Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. In. [S.l.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse; 1978.
• [13]Pullman D, Wang XK. Adaptive designs, informed consent, and the ethics of research. Contr Clin Trials. 2001; 22(3):203-10.
• [14]van der Graaf R, Roes KB, van Delden JM. Adaptive trials in clinical research: Scientific and ethical issues to consider. JAMA. 2012; 307(22):2379-80.
• [15]Berry DA. Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(6):606-9.
• [16]Saxman SB. Ethical considerations for outcome-adaptive trial designs: a clinical Researcher's perspective. Bioethics. 2015; 29(2):59-65.
• [17]Saxman SB. Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman. Clinical Trials. 2015; 12(2):113-5.
• [18]Korn EL, Freidlin B. Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(2):122-4.
• [19]Joffe S, Ellenberg SS. Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(2):116-8.
• [20]Hey SP, Kimmelman J. Are outcome-adaptive allocation trials ethical? Clin Trials. 2015; 12(2):102-6.
• [21]Buyse M. Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(2):119-21.
• [22]Berry DA. Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(2):107-9.
• [23]Truog R. Will ethical requirements bring critical care research to a halt? Intensive Care Med. 2005; 31(3):338-44.
• [24]Tehranisa JS, Meurer WJ. Can response-adaptive randomization increase participation in acute stroke trials? Stroke. 2014; 45(7):2131-3.
• [25]Krueger RA. Focus groups : a practical guide for applied research. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif; 1994.
• [26]Greenbaum TL. The handbook for focus group research. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif; 1998.
• [27]Meurer WJ, Lewis RJ, Tagle D, Fetters MD, Legocki L, Berry S et al.. An overview of the adaptive designs accelerating promising trials into treatments (ADAPT-IT) project. Ann Emerg Med. 2012; 60(4):451-7.
• [28]Muhr T: ATLAS.ti 6.0 {Version 6} In. Berlin, Germany: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH; 2004
• [29]Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis : an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks; 1994.
• [30]Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013; 48(6 Pt 2):2134-56.
• [31]Robinson EJ, Kerr C, Stevens A, Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Edwards S. Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 2004; 58(4):811-24.
• [32]Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. WHat makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000; 283(20):2701-11.
• [33]Perlmutter J, Bell SK, Darien G. Cancer research advocacy: past, present, and future. Canc Res. 2013; 73(15):4611-5.