Clinical research and medical care: towards effective and complete integration

BMC Medical Research Methodology

José A Sacristán¹ 

[1]Clinical Research Department, Lilly Spain, Madrid, Spain

关键词: Bioethics;    Evidence-based medicine;    Observational studies;    Randomized clinical trials;    Patient-reported outcomes;    Preferences;    Patient-centered care;    Patient;    Medical care;    Research;   

Others  :  1090117
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-15-4

 received in 2014-02-09, accepted in 2015-01-02,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Despite their close relationship, clinical research and medical care have become separated by clear boundaries. The purpose of clinical research is to generate generalizable knowledge useful for future patients, whereas medical care aims to promote the well-being of individual patients. The evolution towards patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research, and the gradual standardization of medicine are contributing to closer ties between clinical research and medical practice. But the integration of both activities requires addressing important ethical and methodological challenges.

Discussion

From an ethical perspective, clinical research should evolve from a position of paternalistic beneficence to a situation in which the principle of non-maleficence and patient autonomy predominate. The progressive adoption of “patient-oriented informed consent”, “patient equipoise”, and “altruism-based research”, and the application of risk-based ethical oversight, in which the level of regulatory scrutiny is adapted to the potential risk for patients, are crucial steps to achieve the integration between research and care.

From a methodological standpoint, careful and systematic observations should have greater relevance in clinical research, and experiments should be embedded into usual clinical practice. Clinical research should focus on individuals through the development of patient-oriented research. In a complementary way, the integration of experiments into medical practice through the systematic application of “point of care research” could help to generate knowledge for the individuals and for the populations.

Summary

The integration of clinical research and medical care will require researchers, clinicians, health care managers, and patients to reevaluate the way they understand both activities. The development of an integrated learning health care system will contribute to generating and applying clinically relevant medical knowledge, producing benefits for present and future patients.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Sacristán; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Feinstein AR: “Clinical Judgment” revisited: the distraction of quantitative models. Ann Intern Med 1994, 120:799-805.
• [2]Litton P, Miller FG: A normative justification for distinguishing the ethics of clinical research from the ethics of medical care. J Law Med Ethics 2005, 33:566-74.
• [3]Hill AB: Medical ethics and controlled trials. BMJ 1963, 1(5337):1043-9.
• [4]Angell M: Patients’ preferences in randomized clinical trials. New Engl J Med 1984, 310:1385-7.
• [5]Grunberg SM, Cefalu WT: The integral role of clinical research in clinical care. New Engl J Med 2003, 348:1386-8.
• [6]Hellman S, Hellman DS: Of mice but not men. problems of the randomized clinical trial. New Engl J Med 1991, 324:1585-9.
• [7]Schafer A: The ethics of the randomized clinical trial. New Engl J Med 1982, 307:719-24.
• [8]Gelijns AC, Gabriel SE: Looking beyond translation–integrating clinical research with medical practice. New Engl J Med 2012, 366:1659-61.
• [9]Freemantle N, Blonde L, Bolinder B, Gerber RA, Hobbs FD, Martinez L, Ross S: Real-world trials to answer real-world questions. Pharmacoeconomics 2005, 23:747-54.
• [10]Sox HC, Greenfield S: Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:203-5.
• [11]Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA 2012, 307:1583-4.
• [12]Coons SJ, Kothari S, Monz BU, Burke LB: The patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium: filling measurement gaps for PRO end points to support labeling claims. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011, 90:743-8.
• [13]Forster HP, Schwartz J, DeRenzo E: Reducing legal risk by practicing patient-centered medicine. Arch Intern Med 2002, 162:1217-9.
• [14]Shea S, Hripcsak G: Accelerating the use of electronic health records in physician practices. New Engl J Med 2010, 362:192-5.
• [15]National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Department of Health Education, and Welfare. (DHEW) (30 September 1978). The Belmont Report. (DHEW pub. no. (OS) 78-0012). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office;
• [16]Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C: What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000, 283:2701-11.
• [17]Freedman B: Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New Engl J Med 1987, 317:141-5.
• [18]Miller FG, Rosenstein DL: The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials. New Engl J Med 2003, 348:1383-6.
• [19]Truog RD: Patients and doctors–evolution of a relationship. New Engl J Med 2012, 366:581-5.
• [20]Reith C, Landray M, Devereaux PJ, Bosch J, Granger CB, Baigent C, Califf RM, Collins R, Yusuf S: Randomized clinical trials–removing unnecessary obstacles. New Engl J Med 2013, 369:1061-5.
• [21]Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL: Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New Engl J Med 2003, 348:721-6.
• [22]Dreyfuss D: Is it better to consent to an RCT or to care? muetadeltaepsilonnu alphagammaalphanu (“nothing in excess”). Intens Care Med 2005, 31:345-55.
• [23]Kass N, Faden R, Tunis S: Addressing low-risk comparative effectiveness research in proposed changes to US federal regulations governing research. JAMA 2012, 307:1589-90.
• [24]Kass NE, Faden RR, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL: The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hastings Center Rep 2013, Spec No:S4-15.
• [25]Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, Kass NE: Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. New Engl J Med 2014, 370:766-8.
• [26]Faden RR, Kass NE, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL: An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Center Rep 2013, Spec No:S16-27.
• [27]Schwartz D, Lellouch J: Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chron Dis 1967, 20:637-48.
• [28]Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM: Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003, 290:1624-32.
• [29]Miller FG, Joffe S: Equipoise and the dilemma of randomized clinical trials. New Engl J Med 2011, 364:476-80.
• [30]Davidoff F: Heterogeneity is not always noise: lessons from improvement. JAMA 2009, 302:2580-6.
• [31]Quill TE, Holloway RG: Evidence, preferences, recommendations–finding the right balance in patient care. New Engl J Med 2012, 366:1653-5.
• [32]White A, Danis M: Enhancing patient-centered communication and collaboration by using the electronic health record in the examination room. JAMA 2013, 309:2327-8.
• [33]Hoffmann TC, Legare F, Simmons MB, McNamara K, McCaffery K, Trevena LJ, Hudson B, Glasziou PP, Del Mar CB: Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother? Med J Aust 2014, 201:35-9.
• [34]Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis AM, Easter MM, Grady C, Joffe S, Kass N, King NM, Lidz CW, Miller FG, et al.: Clinical trials and medical care: defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS Med 2007, 4:e324.
• [35]Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W: False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Rep 1987, 17:20-4.
• [36]King NM, Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis AM, Hull SC, Nelson DK, Parham-Vetter PC, Rothschild BB, Easter MM, Wilfond BS: Consent forms and the therapeutic misconception: the example of gene transfer research. IRB 2005, 27:1-8.
• [37]Peppercorn JM, Weeks JC, Cook EF, Joffe S: Comparison of outcomes in cancer patients treated within and outside clinical trials: conceptual framework and structured review. Lancet 2004, 363:263-70.
• [38]Vist GE, Bryant D, Somerville L, Birminghem T, Oxman AD: Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008, 3:MR000009.
• [39]Schaefer GO, Emanuel EJ, Wertheimer A: The obligation to participate in biomedical research. JAMA 2009, 302:67-72.
• [40]Harris J: Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics 2005, 31(4):242-8.
• [41]Sacristan JA: Evidence based medicine and patient centered medicine: some thoughts on their integration. Rev Clin Esp 2013, 213:460-4.
• [42]Sacristan JA: Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Making 2013, 13:6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Conway PH, Clancy C: Charting a path from comparative effectiveness funding to improved patient-centered health care. JAMA 2010, 303:985-6.
• [44]Sacristan JA: Evidence from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses. JAMA 2010, 303:1253-4. author reply 1254–1255
• [45]Sacristan JA: Exploratory trials, confirmatory observations: a new reasoning model in the era of patient-centered medicine. BMC Med Res Mmethodol 2011, 11:57. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Vandenbroucke JP: In defense of case reports and case series. Ann Intern Med 2001, 134:330-4.
• [47]Jenicek M: Clinical case reports: sources of boredom or valuable pieces of evidence? Nat Med J India 2001, 14:193-4.
• [48]Aronson JK, Hauben M: Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence. BMJ 2006, 333:1267-9.
• [49]Stuebe AM: Level IV evidence. adverse anecdote and clinical practice. New Engl J Med 2011, 365:8-9.
• [50]Healy D: The psichopharmacologists II. London: CRC Press; 1998.
• [51]Crofton J: The MRC randomized trial of streptomycin and its legacy: a view from the clinical front line. J Royal Soc Med 2006, 99:531-4.
• [52]Charlton BG, Walston F: Individual case studies in clinical research. J Eval Clin Pract 1998, 4:147-55.
• [53]Sacristan JA, Soto J, Galende I, Hylan TR: Randomized database studies: a new method to assess drugs’ effectiveness? J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:713-5.
• [54]Lauer MS, D’Agostino RB Sr: The randomized registry trial - the next disruptive technology in clinical research? New Engl J Med 2013, 369:1579-81.
• [55]van Staa TP, Dyson L, McCann G, Padmanabhan S, Belatri R, Gooldacre B, et al.: The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess 2014, 18:1-146.
• [56]Staa TP, Goldacre B, Gulliford M, Cassell J, Pirmohamed M, Taweel A, Delaney B, Smeeth L: Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ 2012, 344:e55.
• [57]Jull A, Bennett D: Do n-of-1 trials really tailor treatment? Lancet 2005, 365:1992-4.