Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jeremy Sugarman

Publications and source records attributed to Jeremy Sugarman.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals.

The oversight of research involving human participants is widely believed to be inadequate. The U.S. Congress, national commissions, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine, numerous professional societies, and others are proposing remedies based on the assumption that the main problems are researchers' conflict of interest, lack of institutional review board (IRB) resources, and the volume and complexity of clinical research. Developing appropriate reform proposals requires carefully delineating the problems of the current system to know what reforms are needed. To stimulate a more informed and meaningful debate, we delineate 15 current problems into 3 broad categories. First, structural problems encompass 8 specific problems related to the way the research oversight system is organized. Second, procedural problems constitute 5 specific problems related to the operations of IRB review. Finally, performance assessment problems include 2 problems related to absence of systematic assessment of the outcomes of the oversight system. We critically assess proposed reforms, such as accreditation and central IRBs, according to how well they address these 15 problems. None of the reforms addresses all 15 problems. Indeed, most focus on the procedural problems, failing to address either the structure or the performance assessment problems. Finally, on the basis of the delineation of problems, we outline components of a more effective reform proposal, including bringing all research under federal oversight, a permanent advisory committee to address recurrent ethical issues in clinical research, mandatory single-time review for multicenter research protocols, additional financial support for IRB functions, and a standardized system for collecting and disseminating data on both adverse events and the performance assessment of IRBs.

Accreditation↗
PubMed2004

"Special scrutiny": a targeted form of research protocol review.

Research participants require ongoing protection of the kind already established in law and regulation. However, "special scrutiny" for certain types of research is also needed. Three criteria for special scrutiny are 1) research that involves initial experiences of translating new scientific advances into humans, especially when the intervention is novel, irreversible, or both; 2) research with a known or credible risk for significant harm (death or serious disability are the clearest examples) to research participants as a consequence of the experimental intervention and with no potential for offsetting direct medical benefit; or 3) research with a protocol that raises ethical questions about research design or implementation for which there is no consensus. Special scrutiny recognizes that not all research protocols are equally ethically challenging and aims to provide appropriate protection for all research participants.

Ethical Review↗
PubMed2004

Using empirical data to inform the ethical evaluation of placebo controlled trials.

There has been considerable debate about the ethical acceptability of using placebo-controls in clinical research. Although this debate has been rich in rhetoric, considering that much of this research is predicated upon the assumption that data from this research is vital to clinical decision-making, it is ironic that researchers have introduced little data into these discussions. Using some published research concerning the use of placebo-controls in clinical research in hypertension and psychiatric drug trials, I suggest some ways that such data might be incorporated into the ethical analysis concerning placebo use in clinical trials. This approach promises to be important for enhancing conceptual and scientific understanding as well as public policy decision-making.

Antihypertensive Agents↗
PubMed2004

Ethics in human subjects research: do incentives matter?

There is considerable confusion regarding the ethical appropriateness of using incentives in research with human subjects. Previous work on determining whether incentives are unethical considers them as a form of undue influence or coercive offer. We understand the ethical issue of undue influence as an issue, not of coercion, but of corruption of judgment. By doing so we find that, for the most part, the use of incentives to recruit and retain research subjects is innocuous. But there are some instances where it is not. Specifically, incentives become problematic when conjoined with the following factors, singly or in combination with one another: where the subject is in a dependency relationship with the researcher, where the risks are particularly high, where the research is degrading, where the participant will only consent if the incentive is relatively large because the participant's aversion to the study is strong, and where the aversion is a principled one. The factors we have identified and the kinds of judgments they require differ substantially from those considered crucial in most previous discussions of the ethics of employing incentives in research with human subjects.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2004

The limitations of "vulnerability" as a protection for human research participants.

Vulnerability is one of the least examined concepts in research ethics. Vulnerability was linked in the Belmont Report to questions of justice in the selection of subjects. Regulations and policy documents regarding the ethical conduct of research have focused on vulnerability in terms of limitations of the capacity to provide informed consent. Other interpretations of vulnerability have emphasized unequal power relationships between politically and economically disadvantaged groups and investigators or sponsors. So many groups are now considered to be vulnerable in the context of research, particularly international research, that the concept has lost force. In addition, classifying groups as vulnerable not only stereotypes them, but also may not reliably protect many individuals from harm. Certain individuals require ongoing protections of the kind already established in law and regulation, but attention must also be focused on characteristics of the research protocol and environment that present ethical challenges.

Child↗
PubMed2004

The future of empirical research in bioethics.

Good empirical research is essential to providing sound answers about the facts of the matter, thereby informing bioethical theory and policy. Nevertheless, relatively few topics have been addressed adequately and the most powerful methods have not been exploited to maximize the potential contribution of this work to the field.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2003

Informed consent in a clinical trial of a novel treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the informed consent process for a clinical trial of intravenous doxycycline for rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire about the consent process at baseline and 16 weeks following enrollment in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 30) affirmed voluntary participation in the parent trial. Participants acknowledged hope and altruism as reasons for entering the trial more than expectation of personal benefit or outside influences. Many respondents did not understand randomization (14/30), placebos (15/30), or risks of study medications; 11/30 respondents believed that the study drug was completely safe. CONCLUSION: Respondents generally understood the experimental nature of the trial and confirmed their participation was voluntary. However, gaps existed in participants understanding of trial design, raising the question of whether they were adequately informed about the research study prior to enrollment. Further education of potential participants in clinical trials may be required to achieve valid informed consent.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Toward protecting the safety of participants in clinical trials.

It is a widely held belief that the current system of oversight of clinical research, particularly the means of assessing risks and minimizing harms to participants in clinical trials, could be improved. In particular, the system is inefficient with overemphasis on the monitoring ability of some groups such as research ethics review boards and investigators, underemphasis on others such as data monitoring committees (DMCs) and sponsors, confusion about responsibilities for safety and imperfect communication between these different groups. Research ethics review boards are not able to perform safety monitoring by review of individual adverse events and are often burdened by duplicative reviews of large multicenter studies. There are no standards for DMCs to ensure they can reliably identify safety issues. Sponsors may be overreliant on data audits and slow to disseminate safety data in a coherent summary. Investigators, their staffs and clinical sites may not fully appreciate all the nuances of good clinical practice or may be inattentive to the daily conduct of studies. Regulators, particularly those in the United States, have failed to completely harmonize their policies with each other or with international regulatory agencies. We recommend well-designed monitoring plans for all studies that are appropriate to their scope and risk, more centralized review of large multisite studies and closer local scrutiny of single-institution studies. In addition, sponsors should pay greater attention to monitoring adverse events and keeping up-to-date databases or investigator's brochures emphasizing safety issues. A minimal standard of education or expertise in good clinical practice should be established for investigators, their staffs and research ethics review board members. DMC composition and functions should be standardized and regulations should be harmonized nationally and internationally. Finally, there should be a concerted effort to study the efficacy of various components of the system.

Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees↗
PubMed2003

Disclosure of cancer diagnosis and prognosis in Northern Tanzania.

Whether to tell patients with cancer about their diagnoses and prognoses is a matter of great debate. While many argue the importance of giving this information to facilitate informed decision-making, others argue that this same information can extinguish hope. Although there is some evidence that disclosure of this information is now commonplace in many Northern and Western settings, there are very few data about this issue from resource-poor nations describing physicians' decision-making regarding whether to disclose this information. Using a combination of ethnographic and other qualitative methods including participant observation, semi-structured interviews, informal interviews, and a review of key documents in Northern Tanzania, we map some of the salient issues in this setting. Like their colleagues in many other parts of the world, Tanzanian physicians often withhold diagnostic and prognostic information from patients. In addition, however, to the cultural arguments often used to justify this practice, issues of treatment availability and patient poverty also influenced the physicians' disclosure practices. Expatriate and Tanzanian physicians practicing in Northern Tanzania often had different approaches to informing patients of their diagnoses and prognoses. Some Tanzanian physicians advocated the use of a "roundabout" approach to disclosure, arguing that it was more reflective of the normal mode of discourse in Tanzania than the more direct approach advocated by many of their expatriate colleagues. Expatriate physicians and some of their Tanzanian colleagues felt that such an indirect approach often left patients confused, or indeed, uninformed.

Cost of Illness↗
PubMed2003

Protecting research subjects under the waiver of informed consent for emergency research: experiences with efforts to inform the community.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Health and Human Services created a method for obtaining a waiver of informed consent to permit research in emergency settings when patients are not competent. One of the requirements to obtain a waiver is public disclosure about the research. We describe approaches used to meet the public disclosure requirement. METHODS: We performed a qualitative content analysis of the FDA's repository for mandatory documentation of public disclosure efforts as of November 1999. Data from 4 studies were analyzed: 2 multi-institutional trials involving trauma and 2 smaller trials involving cardiac arrest. These efforts included both 1-way communications, such as announcements, and 2-way communications, such as focus groups and public meetings. Participation in and common concerns expressed during 2-way communications were noted, as was evidence of mechanisms of advance refusal and the collection of quantitative data on public opinion. RESULTS: One-way communications were the predominant method of disclosure. Many 2-way communications were not directed toward lay persons. Those that were often involved fewer than 15 participants. Concerns regarding inability to refuse study participation, racial biases affecting study design and execution, and ambiguity with regard to how community input would be used in study decision making were raised in several 2-way communications. A minority of participating hospitals announced mechanisms of advance refusal or collected quantitative data on public opinion concerning proposed research. CONCLUSION: Initial experience with obtaining a waiver of informed consent for emergency research suggests that community involvement and specific public concerns should be carefully considered in future applications for such a waiver.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗
PubMed2003

Ethical hurdles for translational research.

The notion of translational research has gained considerable currency over the past few years. While such an approach promises great scientific and clinical advances, the penumbra of translational research tends to incorporate prioritizing scientific projects based upon their potential for translation; tight financial connections between sponsors, scientists and clinical investigators; and sometimes research involving biological approaches for which there is little experience determining safety. It is these aspects of translational research that raise some serious ethical challenges. In this report, we examine three specific areas that raise ethical questions: (1) the potential implications of prioritizing research objectives based on the potential for translation; (2) cautions related to moving from bench to bedside (and back again); and (3) unique questions for translational research initiatives in academic medical centers. Based on this examination, it is clear that the financial and ethical costs as well as benefits of taking a translational approach need to be considered. In the meantime, exquisite attention needs to be paid whenever translational research is likely to affect the traditional fiduciary responsibilities of scientists, clinicians and institutions to research subjects, patients and students. Successful mechanisms that might be developed to address any untoward effects should be shared and evaluated.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2002

A national survey of provisions in clinical-trial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors.

BACKGROUND: Concerned about threats to the integrity of clinical trials in a research environment increasingly controlled by private interests, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has issued revised guidelines for investigators' participation in the study design, access to data, and control over publication. It is unclear whether research conducted at academic institutions adheres to these new standards. METHODS: From November 2001 through January 2002, we interviewed officials at U.S. medical schools about provisions in their institutions' agreements with industry sponsors of multicenter clinical trials. A subgroup of the respondents were also asked about coordinating-center agreements for such trials. RESULTS: Of the 122 medical schools that are members of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 108 participated in the survey. The median number of site-level agreements executed per institution in the previous year was 103 (interquartile range, 50 to 210). Scores for compliance with a wide range of provisions--from ensuring that authors of reports on multicenter trials have access to all trial data (1 percent [interquartile range, 0 to 21]) to addressing the plan for data collection and monitoring (10 percent [interquartile range, 1 to 50])--demonstrated limited adherence to the standards embodied in the new ICMJE guidelines. Scores for coordinating-center agreements were somewhat higher for most survey items. CONCLUSIONS: Academic institutions routinely engage in industry-sponsored research that fails to adhere to ICMJE guidelines regarding trial design, access to data, and publication rights. Our findings suggest that a reevaluation of the process of contracting for clinical research is urgently needed.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗