The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials

Author:

Welch Mary Jane1,Lally Rachel2,Miller Jennifer E345,Pittman Stephanie6,Brodsky Lynda7,Caplan Arthur L5,Uhlenbrauck Gina8,Louzao Darcy M8,Fischer James H9,Wilfond Benjamin1011

Affiliation:

1. Human Subjects’ Protection, College of Nursing, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

2. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

3. Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

4. Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

5. Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

6. Human Subjects’ Protection, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

7. Cook County Health & Hospitals System, Chicago, IL, USA

8. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

9. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

10. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA

11. Division of Bioethics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

Abstract

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology,General Medicine

Cited by 54 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3