ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Progress in therapeutic research is slowed by the regulatory burden of clinical trials, which provide the best evidence for guiding treatment. There is a long delay from evidence generation to adoption, highlighting the need for designs that link evidence generation to implementation. OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical trial designs that confer minimal risk above that inherent in clinical care, to obviate the need for cumbersome consenting processes to enrol patients in prospective clinical research studies. These designs extend the scope of the Learning Healthcare System, a framework for leveraging retrospective 'big data' to advance clinical research, to include data collected from prospective controlled trials. SUMMARY: Pragmatic trials may use simplified eligibility criteria, unblinded interventions and objective outcome measures that can all be monitored through the electronic health records (EHR), to reduce costs and speed study conduct. Most pragmatic trials continue to suffer from substantial regulatory burden. Written consent to participate in research can be waived only if the research produces minimal risk above what is encountered in everyday life. However, the 'consent' processes for prescribing Federal Drug Administration-approved medications in clinical medicine are informal, even when they involve decisions of uncertain benefit and higher levels of risk. We propose that trial designs that mimic clinical decision-making in areas of uncertainty (clinical equipoise) and in which no data are generated outside of usual care (ideally by EHR embedding) confer minimal additional risk. Trial designs meeting this standard could, therefore, be conducted with minimal documentation of consent, even when interventions contain different risks. To align with risk encountered in clinical practice, allocation to treatment arms should change (adaptive randomisation) as data are collected and analysed. Embedding of informatics tools into the EHR has the additional benefit that, as adaptive randomisation progresses, evidence-generation transitions into implementation via decision-support tools-the ultimate realisation of the Learning Healthcare System.
Subject(s)
Informed Consent , Therapeutic Human Experimentation , Electronic Health Records , Humans , Prospective Studies , Retrospective StudiesSubject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Studies as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Registries/statistics & numerical data , Advisory Committees , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , France/epidemiology , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Therapeutic Human Experimentation/ethicsSubject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Clinical Trials as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , Government Regulation , Humans , Lactation , Pregnancy , Therapeutic Human Experimentation/ethicsSubject(s)
Drugs, Investigational/adverse effects , Regenerative Medicine/methods , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Regenerative Medicine/standards , Risk , SARS-CoV-2 , Therapeutic Human Experimentation , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic/ethics , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Prisoners , Therapeutic Human Experimentation/ethics , Vaccination/ethics , Viral Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , United StatesABSTRACT
The number of research involving human subjects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is surging, bringing challenges to the ethical review committee (ERC) in terms of reviewing speed and special ethical considerations under the pandemic. However, the existing ethical review system and regulations have their limitations to meet the demand for a prompt and efficient epidemic control. Since the research under the public health emergency is different from that carried out in familiar situations to design and implementation, the strategy for a satisfactory ERC response should balance the duty of protecting individual participants as well as the special public needs derived from the disease control. It is suggested that the ethical review-related regulations need to be updated, and a unified supervision system to the overall ERC is required. ERC collaboration, capacity-improving and efficiency-improving measures need to be taken. With respect to the reviewing guidelines, it is suggested that the international norms should be explained with more consideration of the local condition and the exceptional circumstances in this public health emergency. A joint effort needs to be taken for better research conduction.