Extended Reality-New Opportunity for People With Disability? Practical and Ethical Considerations.

Since the introduction of virtual environments in the 70s, technologies have moved through virtual reality, mixed reality, and augmented reality into extended reality (XR). This development is promising for various groups. Previous research has shown people with disability benefiting from using technology in social and professional settings. Technology has offered people with disability the opportunity to communicate, interact, participate, and build new relationships. However, we do not know what impact XR has or will have and whether it will offer new opportunities for people with disability. This paper aims to indicate potential opportunities and challenges afforded by XR to people with disability. We offer reflections on the opportunities as well as the ethical considerations needed when introducing immersive technologies to a marginalized group.

Composition and capacity of Institutional Review Boards, and challenges experienced by members in ethics review processes in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: An exploratory qualitative study.

Few studies in sub-Saharan Africa evaluate Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) capacity. The study aims to explore the composition of IRBs, training, and challenges experienced in the ethics review processes by members of research institutions and universities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Our findings indicate that most IRBs members were trained on research ethics and good clinical practice. However, majority perceived the trainings as basic. IRB members faced several challenges including: investigators wanting rapid review; time pressure; investigators not following checklists; limited expertise in reviewing clinical trials, studies on genetics, and traditional medicine; lack of IRB offices for administrative work; competing tasks; limited staffing and the lack of a standardized review system. There is need for advanced training on research ethics to meet the evolving research needs. In addition, investments in IRBs are needed in terms of funding, and physical and human resources in Addis Ababa and Ethiopia in general.

Research ethics committees and post-approval activities: a qualitative study on the perspectives of European research ethics committee representatives.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the views of Research Ethics Committee (REC) representatives in the European Union (EU) on what the status quo is in terms of RECs' activities after the approval of trial protocols for clinical studies. METHOD: This is a qualitative study. The participants in this study are members or representatives of a research ethics committee from the member countries of the European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC) and the United Kingdom. Thematic analysis was the method to assess interview transcripts. RESULTS: Interviews of REC representatives from 19 countries across Europe reveals that REC post-approval activities are predominantly limited to review and approval of protocol amendments. The majority of the RECs do not have mandatory continuing reviews or receipt of notifications of adverse events or protocol violations. In fact, most post-approval activities are the remit of the regulatory authorities. The interviewed members were also of the opinion that RECs in the EU do not have the legislative support, the organizational structure, the expert staff nor time to do active post approval follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Post-approval follow-up activities for clinical studies by RECs is a valuable resource and means for early detection and resolution of protocol deviations and violations. However, a majority of RECs within Europe do not have active post-approval follow-up of approved protocols. The interviews revealed that resource challenges such as time, personnel, and organizational structure contribute to the lack of follow-up by RECs. Some RECs in the represented countries do not identify post-approval follow-up as part of their mandate but instead place emphasis on the culture of trust between the RECs and researchers. Current EU Regulations do not directly address the role of the REC after the approval of clinical trials.

The role of research ethics committees after the approval of clinical trial protocols in the EU and the USA: a descriptive content analysis of international and regional normative documents.

AIM: To conduct a descriptive content analysis of normative documents on the role of research ethics committees (RECs) after the approval of clinical trial protocols. The question to be addressed is whether and to what extent normative documents support a monitoring role for RECs in the United States and the European Union. DESIGN: A qualitative content analysis of 19 normative documents on clinical research as outlined by the International Compilation of Human Research Standards 2020 edition and other related documents for the EU and USA. RESULTS: After the approval of research protocols, RECs' general role is to receive reports from researchers on the trials' progress. Additionally, RECs receive notifications of protocol amendments, deviations and, to a lesser extent, violations, which is the remit of the regulatory/competent authorities. RECs are expected to issue opinions on clinical trials' progress and give supplemental opinions/approval or withdraw/suspend/terminate previous favorable opinions on adverse events or safety concerns that may arise. RECs are to receive an end of the trial report. CONCLUSION: The role of RECs post approval of protocols is to protect human participants through activities such as continuing review of: (a) progress reports, (b) notifications of significant protocol amendments, (c) adverse events, (d) protocol deviations, and (e) protocol violations. Although some international guidelines such as the Declaration of Helsinki emphasize the right to monitor, RECs' predominant activity is document review. In the USA, RECs are authorized to issue approvals and terminate/suspend previously issued approvals. However, in the EU, the approach is to relegate to member states to decide the extent of legislative power they wish to give to the RECs. The REC's opinion on the end of trial report is identified as an area for further exploration.

Ethics and the marketing authorization of pharmaceuticals: what happens to ethical issues discovered post-trial and pre-marketing authorization?

BACKGROUND: In the EU, clinical assessors, rapporteurs and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use are obliged to assess the ethical aspects of a clinical development program and include major ethical flaws in the marketing authorization deliberation processes. To this date, we know very little about the manner that these regulators put this obligation into action. In this paper, we intend to look into the manner and the extent that ethical issues discovered during inspection have reached the deliberation processes. METHODS: To gather data, we used the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board database and first searched for the inspections, and their accompanying site inspection reports and integrated inspection reports, related to central marketing authorization applications (henceforth, application/s) of drugs submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2011 to 2015. We then extracted inspection findings that were purely of ethical nature, i.e., those that did not affect the benefit/risk balance of the study (issues related to informed consent, research ethics committees, and respect for persons). Only findings graded at least major by the inspectorate were included. Lastly, to identify how many of the ethically relevant findings (ERFs) reach the application deliberation processes, we extracted the relevant joint response assessment reports and reviewed the sections that discussed inspection findings. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2015, there were 390 processed applications, of which 65 had inspection reports and integrated inspection reports accessible via the database of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Of the 65, we found ERFs in 37 (56.9%). The majority of the ERFs were graded as major and half of the time it was informed-consent related. A third of these findings were related to research ethics committee processes and requirements. Of the 37 inspections with ERFs, 30 were endorsed in the integrated inspection reports as generally GCP compliant. Day 150 joint response assessment reports and Day 180 list of outstanding issues were reviewed for all 37 inspections, and none of the ERFs were carried over in any of the assessment reports or list of outstanding issues. CONCLUSION: None of the ethically relevant findings, all of which were graded as major or critical in integrated inspection reports, were explicitly carried over to the joint assessment reports. This calls for more transparency in EMA application deliberations on how ERFs are considered, if at all, in the decision-making processes.

What do international ethics guidelines say in terms of the scope of medical research ethics?

BACKGROUND: In research ethics, the most basic question would always be, "which is an ethical issue, which is not?" Interestingly, depending on which ethics guideline we consult, we may have various answers to this question. Though we already have several international ethics guidelines for biomedical research involving human participants, ironically, we do not have a harmonized document which tells us what these various guidelines say and shows us the areas of consensus (or lack thereof). In this manuscript, we attempted to do just that. METHODS: We extracted the imperatives from five internationally-known ethics guidelines and took note where the imperatives came from. In doing so, we gathered data on how many guidelines support a specific imperative. RESULTS: We found that there is no consensus on the majority of the imperatives and that in only 8.2% of the imperatives were there at least moderate consensus (i.e., consensus of at least 3 of the 5 ethics guidelines). Of the 12 clusters (Basic Principles; Research Collaboration; Social Value; Scientific Validity; Participant Selection; Favorable Benefit/Risk Ratio; Independent Review; Informed Consent; Respect for Participants; Publication and Registration; Regulatory Sanctions; and Justified Research on the Vulnerable Population), Informed Consent has the highest level of consensus and Research Collaboration and Regulatory Sanctions have the least. CONCLUSION: There was a lack of consensus in the majority of imperatives from the five internationally-known ethics guidelines. This may be partly explained by the differences among the guidelines in terms of their levels of specification as well as conceptual/ideological differences.

Drug regulators and ethics: which GCP issues are also ethical issues?

Within the European Union (EU), good clinical practice (GCP) provides an ethical mandate to regulators; however, it is unclear what the content of that mandate is. By looking at the correspondence between GCP and ethical imperatives, we identify that the mandate is within the following: principles; benefit-risk ratio; scientific validity; results publication; informed consent; respect for participants; and special populations. There are also cases when regulations were ethical but were not pairable to an imperative, and when the former were stricter than the latter. Hence, we suggest closer cooperation between ethics committees and regulators to ensure that future versions of ethics guidelines cover the ethically relevant regulations that were not directly pairable to any imperative, and cooperation between GCP legislative bodies and ethics guideline-making bodies to resolve the discordant areas.

Patient representatives' contributions to the benefit-risk assessment tasks of the European Medicines Agency scientific committees.

In the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the involvement of patients has been increasingly recognized as valuable and necessary. Specifically in scientific committees, patients through patient representatives are actively involved in deliberations and decision making processes. These scientific committees are meant to ensure that licensed medicines have a positive benefit-risk ratio in favour of the patients and users. To investigate what the contributions are of patient representatives in benefit-risk assessment, we interviewed 15 scientific committee members, 10 of whom are/were EU-state regulatory representatives and five are/were patient representatives. We asked the participants questions related to the benefit-risk assessment tasks of their committees, the connection between patient representatives and the patient perspective, and the contribution of patient representatives in the various benefit-risk assessments tasks. We found that the contribution of patient representatives benefit-risk assessment may be a variable of the benefits and the risks involved in the drug such that the necessity of their contribution is strongly felt when both benefits and risks are high, when benefits are almost equal or are equal to risks and when both benefits and risks are low. In terms of the various benefit-risk tasks, patient representatives contribute to benefit-risk analysis by providing criteria that help define the benefit-risk picture. In benefit-risk evaluation, patient representatives aid in providing a specific basis for the values and weights given to specific benefits and risks and in decision making, they provide what may be a crucial patient perspective in terms of the acceptability of risks. Hence, patient representatives provide a specific expertise in these scientific committees.

The fiduciary obligation of the physician-researcher in phase IV trials.

BACKGROUND: In this manuscript, we argue that within the context of phase IV, physician-researchers retain their fiduciary obligation to treat the patient-participants. DISCUSSION: We first clarify why the perspective that research ethics ought to be differentiated from clinical ethics is not applicable in phase IV, and therefore, why therapeutic orientation is most convivial in this phase. Next, assuming that ethics guidelines may be representative of common morality, we show that ethics guidelines see physician-researchers primarily as physicians and only secondarily as researchers. We then elaborate on what a fiduciary obligation is and how some of the obligations are default duties. Lastly, we look at the fiduciary obligation of the physician-researcher in phase IV interventional trials. CONCLUSION: The fiduciary obligation to treat is not as easily waived as in earlier trials. Assuming the entwinement of research and practice in phase IV, physician-researchers, in collaboration with other researchers, investigators, and research ethics committees, should ensure that in terms of study design, methodology, and research practice, the therapeutic value of the research to the patient-participants is not diminished.

Phase IV non-inferiority trials and additional claims of benefit.

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority (NI) trials in drug research are used to demonstrate that a new treatment is not less effective than an active comparator. Since phase IV trials typically aim at informing a clinical decision, the value of a phase IV non-inferiority trial hinges also on its clinical relevance. In such trials, clinical relevance would refer to the added benefit claims of a specific drug, apart from efficacy, relative to its comparator drug in the trial. METHODS: In this study, we reviewed 41 phase IV trials and extracted information on whether the authors mentioned any additional benefit beyond the NI (efficacy) claim of the drug and whether the additional benefit was proven in the trial. We checked whether the additional claim was based on descriptions only or on formal statistical analyses. RESULTS: Our results showed that 22 out of the 41 NI trials mentioned additional benefit of the test drug and most of these claims were related to the safety profile. Of all the post-authorization NI trials that claimed additional benefit, 10 out of 22 NI trials used formal statistical analyses to show additional benefit, and only one included a sample size calculation for the additional benefit prior to the trial. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is room for improvement in terms of designing phase IV NI trials with added benefit claims and in proving these additional claims.

The risk-benefit task of research ethics committees: an evaluation of current approaches and the need to incorporate decision studies methods.

BACKGROUND: Research ethics committees (RECs) are tasked to assess the risks and the benefits of a trial. Currently, two procedure-level approaches are predominant, the Net Risk Test and the Component Analysis. DISCUSSION: By looking at decision studies, we see that both procedure-level approaches conflate the various risk-benefit tasks, i.e., risk-benefit assessment, risk-benefit evaluation, risk treatment, and decision making. This conflation makes the RECs' risk-benefit task confusing, if not impossible. We further realize that RECs are not meant to do all the risk-benefit tasks; instead, RECs are meant to evaluate risks and benefits, appraise risk treatment suggestions, and make the final decision. CONCLUSION: As such, research ethics would benefit from looking beyond the procedure-level approaches and allowing disciplines like decision studies to be involved in the discourse on RECs' risk-benefit task.