Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background There is a concern that the apparent effectiveness of interventions tested in clinical trials may not be an accurate reflection of their actual effectiveness in usual practice. Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed with the intent of addressing this discrepancy. While pragmatic RCTs may increase the relevance of research findings to practice they may also raise new ethical concerns (even while reducing others). To explore this question, we interviewed key stakeholders with the aim of identifying potential ethical challenges in the design and conduct of pragmatic RCTs with a view to developing future guidance on these issues. Methods Interviews were conducted with clinical investigators, methodologists, patient partners, ethicists, and other knowledge users (e.g., regulators). Interviews covered experiences with pragmatic RCTs, ethical issues relevant to pragmatic RCTs, and perspectives on the appropriate oversight of pragmatic RCTs. Interviews were coded inductively by two coders. Interim and final analyses were presented to the broader team for comment and discussion before the analytic framework was finalized. Results We conducted 45 interviews between April and September 2018. Interviewees represented a range of disciplines and jurisdictions as well as varying content expertise. Issues of importance in pragmatic RCTs were (1) identification of relevant risks from trial participation and determination of what constitutes minimal risk; (2) determining when alterations to traditional informed consent approaches are appropriate; (3) the distinction between research, quality improvement, and practice; (4) the potential for broader populations to be affected by the trial and what protections they might be owed; (5) the broader range of trial stakeholders in pragmatic RCTs, and determining their roles and responsibilities; and (6) determining what constitutes “usual care” and implications for trial reporting. Conclusions Our findings suggest both the need to discuss familiar ethical topics in new ways and that there are new ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs that need greater attention. Addressing the highlighted issues and developing guidance will require multidisciplinary input, including patient and community members, within a broader and more comprehensive analysis that extends beyond consent and attends to the identified considerations relating to risk and stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

Background We previously showed that the 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk threshold to initiate statins for primary prevention depends on the baseline CVD risk, age, sex, and the incidence of statin-related harm outcome and competing risk for non-CVD death. As these factors appear to vary across countries, we aimed in this study to determine country-specific thresholds and provide guidelines a quantitative benefit-harm assessment method for local adaptation. Methods For each of the 186 countries included, we replicated the benefit-harm balance analysis using an exponential model to determine the thresholds to initiate statin use for populations aged 40 to 75 years, with no history of CVD. The analyses took data inputs from a priori studies, including statin effect estimates (network meta-analysis), patient preferences (survey), and baseline incidence of harm outcomes and competing risk for non-CVD (global burden of disease study). We estimated the risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins were more likely to outweigh the harms using a stochastic approach to account for statistical uncertainty of the input parameters. Results The 5 th and 95 th percentiles of the 10-year risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins outweigh the harms across 186 countries ranged between 14 and 20% in men and 19–24% in women, depending on age (i.e., 90% of the country-specific thresholds were in the ranges stated). The median risk thresholds varied from 14 to 18.5% in men and 19 to 22% in women. The between-country variability of the thresholds was slightly attenuated when further adjusted for age resulting, for example, in a 5 th and 95 th percentiles of 14–16% for ages 40–44 years and 17–21% for ages 70–74 years in men. Some countries, especially the islands of the Western Pacific Region, had higher thresholds to achieve net benefit of statins at 25–36% 10-year CVD risks. Conclusions This extensive benefit-harm analysis modeling shows that a single CVD risk threshold, irrespective of age, sex and country, is not appropriate to initiate statin use globally. Instead, countries need to carefully determine thresholds, considering the national or subnational contexts, to optimize benefits of statins while minimizing related harms and economic burden.

Earlier in the pages of this journal (p 481), Wendler and Miller offered the “net risks test” as an alternative approach to the ethical analysis of benefits and harms in research. They have been vocal critics of the dominant view of benefit–harm analysis in research ethics, which encompasses core concepts of duty of care, clinical equipoise and component analysis. They had been challenged to come up with a viable alternative to component analysis which meets five criteria. The alternative must (1) protect research subjects; (2) allow clinical research to proceed; (3) explain how physicians may offer trial enrolment to their patients; (4) address the challenges posed by research containing a mixture of interventions and (5) define ethical standards according to which the risks and potential benefits of research may be consistently evaluated. This response argues that the net risks test meets none of these criteria and concludes that it is not a viable alternative to component analysis.

It is our concern that European Union Directive 2010/63/EU with its current project evaluation of animal research in the form of a harm–benefit analysis may lead to an erosion of the credibility of research. The HBA assesses whether the inflicted harm on animals is outweighed by potential prospective benefits. Recent literature on prospective benefit analysis prioritizes “societal benefits” that have a foreseeable, positive impact on humans, animals, or the environment over benefit in the form of knowledge. In this study, we will argue that whether practical benefits are realized is (a) impossible to predict and (b) exceeds the scope and responsibility of researchers. Furthermore, we believe that the emphasis on practical benefits has the drawback of driving researchers into speculation on the societal benefit of their research and, therefore, into promising too much, thereby leading to a loss of trust and credibility. Thus, the concepts of benefit and benefit assessment in the HBA require a re-evaluation in a spirit that embraces the value of knowledge in our society. The generation of scientific knowledge has been utilised to great benefit for humans, animals, and the environment. The HBA, as it currently stands, tends to turn this idea upside down and implies that research is of value only if the resulting findings bring about immediate societal benefit.

Background We define clinical study reports (CSRs) as standardized full reports of the protocols, results, and other pertinent details of clinical studies that are typically submitted by pharmaceutical companies to regulatory authorities when they apply for marketing authorization. Methods In this systematic review we searched various databases (Clarivate Web of Science, EMBASE and Ovid Medline, Google Scholar, and PubMed) for publications containing the term “clinical study report/s”, without restrictions. Thematic synthesis In the first part of this review we discussed the history of CSRs, their contents and structure, definitions, and relevant terminology. In this second part we discuss the uses of CSRs, concentrating on the individual benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions, and thus the benefit to harm balance. We also discuss adherence to interventions, prepublication of protocols of clinical trials, and how CSRs are written, factors that can all affect estimation of the benefit-harm balance. Conclusions When clinical trial data from CSRs are compared with the data in published trial reports, the apparent benefits of pharmacological interventions are less impressive, and more information emerges about harms they can cause. Both of these effects change how the benefit-harm balance of a pharmacological intervention is estimated, generally making it less favourable than was otherwise thought. For more accurate assessment of the benefit-harm balance of an intervention, full, not abbreviated or synoptic, clinical study reports should continue to be made publicly available by regulatory authorities and manufacturers. Authorities that do not currently make them available should do so. CSRs should be introduced for assessment of surgical operations, therapeutic devices, and other non-pharmacological interventions in clinical trials.

Purpose The use of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is associated with various beneficial outcomes, alongside certain undesirable effects. This study aims to determine optimal risk thresholds above which statin therapy yields a net benefit, considering both the positive effects and potential adverse effects, as well as their probabilities and patient preferences. Methods Quantitative benefit-harm balance modeling was applied to the Iranian general population aged 40 to 75 years with no history of CVD. The analysis utilized data from prior studies, including statin effect estimates for different outcomes from a meta-analysis, patient preferences obtained from an Iranian survey, and baseline incidence rates of adverse outcomes sourced from the Global Burden of Disease study for Iran. Outcomes were defined as angina, myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, fatal or non-fatal stroke, and heart failure. Benefit-harm balance indices were calculated for various combinations of age, sex, and 10-year CVD risk. Results Statin therapy was found to be advantageous at a lower 10-year CVD risk threshold in men (18–23%) compared to women (24–28%). Furthermore, individuals aged 40–45 years exhibited a lower risk threshold (18% in men, 24% in women) than those aged 70–75 years (23% in men, 28% in women). Conclusion The desirable 10-year risk thresholds for statin prescription in the primary prevention of CVD vary by age and gender, ranging from 18 to 28%, encompassing a spectrum of outcomes from angina to CVD mortality. These results suggest hard-CVD risk thresholds of 7.5% to 10% for both sexes.

Background Although commonly used to evaluate health interventions, cluster randomized trials raise difficult ethical issues. Recognizing this, the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials , published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues across seven domains. But due to several developments in the design and implementation of cluster randomized trials, there are new issues requiring guidance. To inform the forthcoming update of the Ottawa Statement , we aimed to identify any gaps in the Ottawa Statement discussed within the literature. Methods We searched Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science using the ‘cited by’ function on 11 November 2022.We included all types of publications, including articles, book chapters, commentaries, editorials, ethics guidelines, theses and trial-related publications (i.e., primary reports, protocols, and secondary analyses), that cited and engaged with the Ottawa Statement , the Ottawa Statement précis, or one or more of its four background papers. Data were extracted by four reviewers working in rotating pairs. Reviewers captured relevant text verbatim and recorded whether it reflected a gap relating to one or more of the Ottawa Statement domains. Using a thematic analysis approach, semantic coding was used to summarize the content of the data into distinct gaps within the Ottawa Statement domains, which was subsequently expanded in an inductive manner through discussion. Results The qualitative analysis of the text from 53 articles resulted in the identification of 24 distinct gaps in the Ottawa Statement : 4 gaps about justifying the cluster randomized design; 2 gaps about research ethics committee review; 3 gaps about identifying research participants; 4 gaps about obtaining informed consent; 3 gaps about gatekepeers; 6 gaps about assessing benefits and harms; 1 gap about protecting vulnerable participants; and 1 gap about equity-related issues in cluster randomized trials. Conclusion Identifying 24 gaps reveals a need to update the Ottawa Statement . Alongside additional gaps identified in ongoing empirical work and through engagement with our patient and public partners, the gaps identified through this citation analysis should be considered in the forthcoming Ottawa Statement update.

Animal research ethics and animal welfare in science have become progressively tightly regulated, and ethical integrity and scientific quality, as well as social responsiveness and responsibility have become key requirements for research to be approved, funded, published, and accepted. The multitude of factors to contemplate has in some instances not only become complex, requiring a team approach, but often perceived as confusing and overwhelming. To facilitate a process of simplistic yet comprehensive conceptualization, we developed the 12 Rs Framework to act as a mind map to guide scientists, oversight structures, and other stakeholders through the myriad of ethical considerations. It unfolds into three domains of twelve encompassing ethical principles, values, and other considerations, including the animal welfare, social values, and scientific integrity domains, whilst also recognizing the diversity of local context, legal requirements, values, and cultures around the globe. In the end, it can be seen as a unifying ethical framework to foster and promote animal research ethics.

Background Scientific research projects involving animals are required to undergo ethical evaluation, generally known as harm-benefit analysis (HBA) , to ensure that they address important ethical concerns related to animal welfare and the scientific quality of the research to maximize the likelihood of their potential benefits. Research continuously shows the challenges encountered by decision-makers, prompting researchers to review how HBA is conducted and to propose tools to aid decision-making. However, the extent to which such resources are currently available, their jurisdictions of applicability, and how they guide decision-making are not entirely clear. Method Through a Scoping Review methodology, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for publications in Europe and North America (USA and Canada) from 1985 to 2023. Title and abstract, full-text, and reference screenings, followed by data charting, respectively, were carried out for retrieved publications using pre-developed and registered review protocol. Results 17 resources that can guide HBA and decision-making were identified. They discussed what should constitute harm to animals and benefits of research, and how these two interests can be balanced to make a decision. Some adopt mathematical calculations, some propose guidelines for committee discussions, while others propose the combination of different approaches to decision-making. Conclusions Decision-making based on deliberation among committee members should be supported over the use of scoring approaches. Additionally, making ethical decisions on a case-by-case basis is preferable to accuracy, which may not be realistically practicable.

The use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research is regulated under stringent conditions, not only in response to societal attitudes towards animal experimentation but also because ethical responsibility in scientific research requires researchers and veterinarians to be more invested and aim to improve the welfare of animals used for experiments. Analyses of animal research oversight reveal the frequent approval of experiments, and the approval of some experiments has raised and continues to raise public concerns. Societal compliance is required for a consensus-based approach to animal research policy, prompting the need to have transparent discussions about oversight and the frequency of approvals. We discuss how frequent approval may be perceived and why it seems problematic from a societal perspective: the regulatory process exists to approve only legitimate experiments. Although some experiments remain unacceptable irrespective of their harm–benefit ratios, almost all experiments are approved. We explain some possible legitimate reasons for frequent approval and how the review process could be leading to the approval of illegitimate studies. To ensure transparency and improve public trust and understanding of oversight, we propose the adoption of a platform to inform society about how unethical experiments are screened out.