Explore the vast range of titles available.

For many years, placebos have been defined by their inert content and their use as controls in clinical trials and treatments in clinical practice. Recent research shows that placebo effects are genuine psychobiological events attributable to the overall therapeutic context, and that these effects can be robust in both laboratory and clinical settings. There is also evidence that placebo effects can exist in clinical practice, even if no placebo is given. Further promotion and integration of laboratory and clinical research will allow advances in the ethical use of placebo mechanisms that are inherent in routine clinical care, and encourage the use of treatments that stimulate placebo effects.

Bristol Myers Squibb adheres to the joint European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's Principles for Responsible Clinical Trial Data Sharing,2 which are widely recognised as industry standards for data transparency and dissemination. Bristol Myers Squibb's criteria and process for data sharing are transparent and publicly available, ensuring that requesters are qualified researchers with legitimate scientific objectives for requesting clinical trial data about patients and for medicines approved by national regulatory systems. [...]we take great care to uphold patient privacy by implementing adequate protections consistent with informed consent protocols. Additional information on the Principles for Responsible Clinical Trial Data Sharing,2 our commitment to clinical trial disclosure,3 and the platform for requesting data4 can be found online.

The “cohort multiple randomized controlled trial,” a new design for pragmatic trials, embeds multiple trials within a cohort. The cohort multiple RCT is an attractive alternative to conventional RCTs in fields where recruitment is slow, multiple new (competing) interventions for the same condition have to be tested, new interventions are highly preferred by patients and doctors, and the risk of disappointment bias, cross-over, and contamination is considerable. To prevent these unwanted effects, the cohort multiple RCT provides information on randomization to the intervention group/arm only, and only after randomization (i.e., prerandomization). To some, especially in a clinical setting, this is not ethically acceptable. In this article, we argue that prerandomization in the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) can be avoided by adopting a staged-informed consent procedure. In the first stage, at entry into the cohort, all potential participants are asked for their informed consent to participate in a cohort study and broad consent to be either randomly selected to be approached for experimental interventions or to serve as control without further notice during participation in the cohort. In a second stage, at the initiation of an RCT within the cohort, informed consent to receive the intervention is then only sought in those randomly selected for the intervention arm. At the third stage, after completion of each RCT, all cohort participants receive aggregate disclosure of trial results. This staged-informed consent procedure avoids prerandomization in cmRCT and aims to keep participants actively engaged in the research process.

The Peruvian Government searched for a vaccine as a response to COVID-19. A clinical trial evaluating an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was approved. A national news program revealed that Peru's president had received the vaccine outside the clinical trial, generating a national protest. The Peruvian National Academy of Medicine created a commission to identify improper procedures and provide guidance on how to prevent a similar case in the future. Commission members reviewed all publicly available documents and information sources and generated a final report. There were 6 ethical principles violations: 1) 3200 vaccine doses were used to vaccinate individuals outside the clinical trial; 2) prominent individuals were vaccinated outside of the clinical trial; 3) study conduct was monitored by a contract research organization with a conflict of interest; 4) an additional study was conducted with the vaccine without an approved protocol; 5) the placebo-controlled trial was continued when an approved vaccine was available; and 6) results of the clinical trial were not released. There were 5 regulatory procedures ignored: 1) no clinical trial supervision by a high-quality clinical monitoring agency outside Peru; 2) a university acting as a sponsor of a vaccine produced by a foreign company; 3) expedited reviews and approvals; 4) lack of adequate supervision by local regulatory bodies and the study contract research organization (CRO); and 5) no input from the Data Safety Monitoring Board. The COVID-19 health emergency created an environment where existing regulatory and ethical principles were circumvented under political pressure. Regulatory bodies and agencies should inform countries of the dangers of conducting clinical trials during a public health emergency and proper ethical and regulatory procedures should be followed. •Testing an experimental SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, as a response to the COVID-19 in Peru, included vaccinating individuals not participating in the vaccine trial.•The Peruvian Academy of Medicine created a commission to identify what was not done properly and recommend how to prevent a similar case in the future.•Six ethical principles were violated, and 5 regulatory procedures were not done properly.•Testing an experimental vaccine during a sanitary emergency, under high political pressure, creates and environment where existing regulatory procedures and ethical principles can be circumvented.

Background New considerations during the ethical review processes may emerge from innovative, yet unfamiliar operational methods enabled in pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCT), potentially making institutional review board (IRB) evaluation more complex. In this manuscript, key components of the pragmatic “Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE)” randomized trial that required a reappraisal of the IRB submission, review, and approval processes are discussed. Main text ADAPTABLE is a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label RCT evaluating the comparative effectiveness of two doses of aspirin widely used for secondary prevention (81 mg and 325 mg) in 15,000 patients with an established history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The electronic informed consent form is completed online by the participants at the time of enrollment, and endpoint ascertainment is conducted through queries of electronic health records. IRB challenges encountered regarding centralized IRB evaluation, electronic informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination in ADAPTABLE are described in this manuscript. The experience of ADAPTABLE encapsulates how pragmatic protocol components intended to facilitate the study conduct have been tempered by unexpected, yet justified concerns raised by local IRBs. How the lessons learned can be applied to future similar pragmatic trials is delineated. Conclusion Development of engaging communication channels between IRB and study personnel in pragmatic randomized trials as early as at the time of protocol design allows to reduce issues with IRB approval. Integrations of the lessons learned in ADAPTABLE regarding the IRB process for centralized IRBs, informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination can be emulated and will be instrumental in future pragmatic studies.

Today, more than 75 percent of pharmaceutical drug trials in the United States are being conducted in the private sector. Once the sole province of academic researchers, these important studies are now being outsourced to non-academic physicians. According to Jill A. Fisher, this major change in the way medical research is performed is the outcome of two problems in U.S. health care: decreasing revenue for physicians and decreasing access to treatment for patients. As physicians report diminishing income due to restrictive relationships with insurers, increasing malpractice insurance premiums, and inflated overhead costs to operate private practices, they are attracted to pharmaceutical contract research for its lucrative return. Clinical trials also provide limited medical access to individuals who have no or inadequate health insurance because they offer \"free\" doctors' visits, diagnostic tests, and medications to participants. Focusing on the professional roles of those involved, as well as key research practices, Fisher assesses the risks and advantages for physicians and patients alike when pharmaceutical drug studies are used as an alternative to standard medical care. A volume in the Critical Issues in Health and Medicine series, edited by Rima D. Apple and Janet Golden

Young children will ultimately need to be vaccinated to stop the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Initial studies of vaccine were performed in adults. Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard. In the COVID-19 pandemic, many questions need to be answered about the ethics and feasibility of these trials. Given the harms of the COVID-19 pandemic and the now-known efficacy of the vaccines in adults and teens, the question of whether clinical equipoise exists for a placebo-controlled trial of vaccines in younger children remains. Parents may be reluctant to enroll children in these trials because they want their child to receive the vaccine or because they are worried about vaccines or clinical trials in general. One option for gathering data on tolerability and efficacy in children would be to use a nonrandomized trial to enroll parents willing to vaccinate their children and those who are hesitant. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such an open-label trial that could provide guidance for future pandemics. (Clin Ther.

As a new data analysis adds weight to calls for retraction of a paper on paroxetine in adolescents, Peter Doshi examines the resistance to action of a professional society, its journal, and an Ivy League university

Background Research guidelines generally recognize vulnerable populations to include neonates with the aim of enhancing protections from harm. In practice, such guidance results in limiting participation in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Yet while medical care of neonates should be based on best research evidence to ensure that safe, efficacious treatment or procedures are used, this seldom happens in contemporary practice. Discussion The compelling need to generate information on effectiveness and safety of procedures and medications that are already in use during neonatal care has led to increase in calls for pragmatic randomized clinical trials (PCTs). This raises ethical concerns as to whether exclusion of the vulnerable populations from research participations constitutes harm. First, neonates are denied access to both potentially beneficial research outputs and an opportunity to generate data on how interventions or medications perform in diverse clinical settings and inform clinical decision-making. Secondly, risks and harms in PCTs may differ from traditional RCTs, and can be reduced by modifications in study designs. The latter may involve assessment of effectiveness of comparable medication, devices or practices (whose safety data is available), randomization at the group level rather than at the individual level, avoidance of invasive and innovative study procedures, reliance on locally available data on relevant patient outcomes, and employment of procedures that tend to meet the criteria of minimal risk for human subject research. Thirdly, informed consent procedures should be modified from those of traditional RCTs, as neonates in traditional RCTs may be vulnerable to different extents in PCTs. Lastly, regulatory and oversight procedures designed for traditional RCT settings need modification, as they may not be translatable, feasible, appropriate or even ethical to apply in PCTs. Conclusion The principle of justice, commonly interpreted as preventing an inequitable burden of research, should also allow fair access to potential benefits from PCTs for neonates and other vulnerable populations. Under certain conditions, prospective randomized trials involving neonates should be ethically permissible to allow inclusion of neonates in research. This may require modification of the research design, consent procedures or regulations for research oversight.