Literature DB >> 20506695

Extending clinical equipoise to phase 1 trials involving patients: unresolved problems.

James A Anderson1, Jonathan Kimmelman.   

Abstract

Notwithstanding requirements for scientific/social value and risk/benefit proportionality in major research ethics policies, there are no widely accepted standards for these judgments in Phase 1 trials. This paper examines whether the principle of clinical equipoise can be used as a standard for assessing the ratio of risk to direct-benefit presented by drugs administered in one category of Phase 1 study--first-in-human trials involving patients. On the basis of the supporting evidence for, and architecture of, Phase 1 studies, the articles offers two provisional conclusions: (1) the risks of drug administration in such trials cannot generally be justified on therapeutic grounds but by appeal to the social value of the research; and (2) a framework for adjudicating the ratio of risk/social-value must be developed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20506695      PMCID: PMC4482670          DOI: 10.1353/ken.0.0307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J        ISSN: 1054-6863


  59 in total

1.  Equipoise, knowledge and ethics in clinical research and practice.

Authors:  Richard Ashcroft
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 1.898

2.  Using the continual reassessment method: lessons learned from an EORTC phase I dose finding study.

Authors:  Xavier Paoletti; Benoît Baron; Patrick Schöffski; Pierre Fumoleau; Denis Lacombe; Sandrine Marreaud; Richard Sylvester
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2006-06-05       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test.

Authors:  D Wendler; F G Miller
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 4.  Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review.

Authors:  Pablo Perel; Ian Roberts; Emily Sena; Philipa Wheble; Catherine Briscoe; Peter Sandercock; Malcolm Macleod; Luciano E Mignini; Pradeep Jayaram; Khalid S Khan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-12-15

Review 5.  Questing for grails: duplicity, betrayal and self-deception in postmodern medical research.

Authors:  G J Annas
Journal:  J Contemp Health Law Policy       Date:  1996

6.  Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials.

Authors:  Thomas G Roberts; Bernardo H Goulart; Lee Squitieri; Sarah C Stallings; Elkan F Halpern; Bruce A Chabner; G Scott Gazelle; Stan N Finkelstein; Jeffrey W Clark
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-11-03       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002.

Authors:  Elizabeth Horstmann; Mary S McCabe; Louise Grochow; Seiichiro Yamamoto; Larry Rubinstein; Troy Budd; Dale Shoemaker; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Christine Grady
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Ethics of phase 1 oncology studies: reexamining the arguments and data.

Authors:  Manish Agrawal; Ezekiel J Emanuel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-08-27       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias.

Authors:  Malcolm R Macleod; Tori O'Collins; David W Howells; Geoffrey A Donnan
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 7.914

Review 10.  Toward wisdom from failure: lessons from neuroprotective stroke trials and new therapeutic directions.

Authors:  David J Gladstone; Sandra E Black; Antoine M Hakim
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 7.914

View more
  12 in total

1.  Novel therapies, high-risk pediatric research, and the prospect of benefit: learning from the ethical disagreements.

Authors:  Inmaculada de Melo-Martín; Dolan Sondhi; Ronald G Crystal
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 11.454

2.  Assessing risk/benefit for trials using preclinical evidence: a proposal.

Authors:  Jonathan Kimmelman; Valerie Henderson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Ethics, error, and initial trials of efficacy.

Authors:  Spencer Phillips Hey; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 17.956

4.  Risk of surgical delivery to deep nuclei: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jonathan Kimmelman; Katherine Duckworth; Tim Ramsay; Tiffini Voss; Bernard Ravina; Marina Elena Emborg
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2011-05-14       Impact factor: 10.338

5.  Ethical issues in nanomedicine: Tempest in a teapot?

Authors:  Irit Allon; Ahmi Ben-Yehudah; Raz Dekel; Jan-Helge Solbakk; Klaus-Michael Weltring; Gil Siegal
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2017-03

6.  The ethics of HIV "cure" research: what can we learn from consent forms?

Authors:  Gail E Henderson
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.205

7.  New considerations in the design of clinical trials for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Authors:  James D Berry; Merit E Cudkowicz
Journal:  Clin Investig (Lond)       Date:  2011-10

8.  Perceptions of Equipoise, Risk-Benefit Ratios, and "Otherwise Healthy Volunteers" in the Context of Early-Phase HIV Cure Research in the United States: A Qualitative Inquiry.

Authors:  Karine Dubé; Lynda Dee; David Evans; Laurie Sylla; Jeff Taylor; Brandon Brown; Veronica Miller; Amy Corneli; Asheley Skinner; Sandra B Greene; Joseph D Tucker; Stuart Rennie
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 9.  A theoretical framework for early human studies: uncertainty, intervention ensembles, and boundaries.

Authors:  Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-09-22       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 10.  The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling.

Authors:  Ray Greek; Annalea Pippus; Lawrence A Hansen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.