Literature DB >> 26374686

Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.

John D Lantos1, David Wendler2, Edward Septimus3, Sarita Wahba4, Rosemary Madigan5, Geraldine Bliss6.   

Abstract

Institutional review boards, which are charged with overseeing research, must classify the riskiness of proposed research according to a federal regulation known as the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A) and by regulations governing the US Food and Drug Administration codified in 21 CFR 50. If an institutional review board determines that a clinical trial constitutes "minimal risk," there are important practical implications: the institutional review board may then allow a waiver or alteration of the informed consent process; the study may be carried out in certain vulnerable populations; or the study may be reviewed by institutional review boards using an expedited process. However, it is unclear how institutional review boards should assess the risk levels of pragmatic clinical trials. Such trials typically compare existing, widely used medical therapies or interventions in the setting of routine clinical practice. Some of the therapies may be considered risky of themselves but the study comparing them may or may not add to that pre-existing level of risk. In this article, we examine the common interpretations of research regulations regarding minimal-risk classifications and suggest that they are marked by a high degree of variability and confusion, which in turn may ultimately harm patients by delaying or hindering potentially beneficial research. We advocate for a clear differentiation between the risks associated with a given therapy and the incremental risk incurred during research evaluating those therapies as a basic principle for evaluating the risk of a pragmatic clinical trial. We then examine two pragmatic clinical trials and consider how various factors including clinical equipoise, practice variation, research methods such as cluster randomization, and patients' perspectives may contribute to current and evolving concepts of minimal-risk determinations, and how this understanding in turn affects the design and conduct of pragmatic clinical trials.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Common Rule; ethics; ethics committees; institutional review board; minimal risk; patient-centered outcomes research; pragmatic clinical trial; research

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26374686      PMCID: PMC4703320          DOI: 10.1177/1740774515597687

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  42 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of medical practice variation in OECD countries.

Authors:  Ashley N Corallo; Ruth Croxford; David C Goodman; Elisabeth L Bryan; Divya Srivastava; Therese A Stukel
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 2.980

2.  OHRP and standard-of-care research.

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  The concept of risk in comparative-effectiveness research.

Authors:  John D Lantos; John A Spertus
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Contemporary patterns of discharge aspirin dosing after acute myocardial infarction in the United States: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR).

Authors:  Hurst M Hall; James A de Lemos; Jonathan R Enriquez; Darren K McGuire; S Andrew Peng; Karen P Alexander; Matthew T Roe; Nihar Desai; Stephen D Wiviott; Sandeep R Das
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2014-08-12

5.  Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert M Califf; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Thrombus Aspiration in ST-Elevation myocardial infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE trial). A multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical registry trial based on the Swedish angiography and angioplasty registry (SCAAR) platform. Study design and rationale.

Authors:  Ole Fröbert; Bo Lagerqvist; Thórarinn Gudnason; Leif Thuesen; Roger Svensson; Göran K Olivecrona; Stefan K James
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.749

7.  Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study.

Authors:  Carmen C Polito; Sushma K Cribbs; Greg S Martin; Terence O'Keeffe; Dan Herr; Todd W Rice; Jonathan E Sevransky
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Shorter dialysis times are associated with higher mortality among incident hemodialysis patients.

Authors:  Steven M Brunelli; Glenn M Chertow; Elizabeth D Ankers; Edmund G Lowrie; Ravi Thadhani
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 10.612

9.  Variability in IRBs regarding parental acceptance of passive consent.

Authors:  Renee A Higgerson; Lauren E W Olsho; LeeAnn M Christie; Kyle Rehder; Teresa Doksum; Rainer Gedeit; John S Giuliano; Beth Brennan; Rachael Wendlandt; Adrienne G Randolph
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 7.124

10.  How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?

Authors:  Seema Shah; Amy Whittle; Benjamin Wilfond; Gary Gensler; David Wendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  26 in total

Review 1.  Pragmatic Trials in Maintenance Dialysis: Perspectives from the Kidney Health Initiative.

Authors:  Laura M Dember; Patrick Archdeacon; Mahesh Krishnan; Eduardo Lacson; Shari M Ling; Prabir Roy-Chaudhury; Kimberly A Smith; Michael F Flessner
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 10.121

2.  Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research.

Authors:  Ross E McKinney; Laura M Beskow; Daniel E Ford; John D Lantos; Jonathan McCall; Bray Patrick-Lake; Mark J Pletcher; Brian Rath; Hollie Schmidt; Kevin Weinfurt
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  P Pearl O'Rourke; Judith Carrithers; Bray Patrick-Lake; Todd W Rice; Jeremy Corsmo; Raffaella Hart; Marc K Drezner; John D Lantos
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Harms, benefits, and the nature of interventions in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Joseph Ali; Joseph E Andrews; Carol P Somkin; C Egla Rabinovich
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert M Califf; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Ethical and Regulatory Issues for Embedded Pragmatic Trials Involving People Living with Dementia.

Authors:  Emily A Largent; Spencer Phillips Hey; Kristin Harkins; Allison K Hoffman; Steven Joffe; Julie C Lima; Alex John London; Jason Karlawish
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  A framework for analysis of research risks and benefits to participants in standard of care pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Stephanie C Chen; Scott Yh Kim
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.486

8.  Targeted Consent for Research on Standard of Care Interventions in the Emergency Setting.

Authors:  David Wendler; Neal W Dickert; Robert Silbergleit; Scott Y H Kim; Jeremy Brown
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 9.  Leveraging Data Science for a Personalized Haemodialysis.

Authors:  Miguel Hueso; Lluís de Haro; Jordi Calabia; Rafael Dal-Ré; Cristian Tebé; Karina Gibert; Josep M Cruzado; Alfredo Vellido
Journal:  Kidney Dis (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-25

Review 10.  Alternative Consent Models in Pragmatic Palliative Care Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Joan G Carpenter; Connie Ulrich; Nancy Hodgson; Laura C Hanson; Mary Ersek
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 5.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.