Offshoring Clinical Trials: The Mutable Ethics, Weak Protections and Vulnerable Subjects of EU Law

In this paper I engage with science and technology studies work on pharmaceuticalisation to explore how European Union (EU) law helps to produce and support the preference for pharmaceutical responses in public health governance, while authorising the production of vulnerable subjects through the growing off-shoring of clinical trials. Drawing on the analysis of legal and policy documents, I demonstrate how EU law allows and legitimates the use of data procured from vulnerable subjects abroad for market authorisation and corporate profitability at home. This is possible because the EU has (de)selected international ethical frameworks in order to support the continued and growing use of clinical trials data from abroad. This has helped to stimulate the revision of international ethical frameworks in light of market needs, inscribing EU public health law within specific politics (that often remained obscured by the joint workings of legal and technological discourses). I suggest that law operates as part of a broader ‘technology’ – encompassing ethics and human rights discourses – that functions to optimise life through resort to market reasoning. Law is thereby reoriented, instrumentalised and deployed as part of a broader project aimed at (re)defining and limiting the boundaries of the EU's responsibility for public health, including the broader social production of public health problems and the unequal global order that the EU represents and helps to depoliticise and perpetuate. Overall, this limits the EU's responsibility and accountability for these failures, as well as another: the weak and mutable protections and insecure legacies for vulnerable trial subjects abroad.

How Outcomes Are Defined in Clinical Trials of Mechanically Ventilated Adults and Children

Systematic reviews have considerable potential to provide evidence-based data to aid clinical decision-making. However, there is growing recognition that trials involving mechanical ventilation lack consistency in the definition and measurement of ventilation outcomes, creating difficulties in combining data for meta-analyses. To address the inconsistency in outcome definitions, international standards for trial registration and clinical trial protocols published recommendations, effectively setting the “gold standard” for reporting trial outcomes. In this Critical Care Perspective, we review the problems resulting from inconsistent outcome definitions and inconsistent reporting of outcomes (outcome sets). We present data highlighting the variability of the most commonly reported ventilation outcome definitions. Ventilation outcomes reported in trials over the last 6 years typically fall into four domains: measures of ventilator dependence; adverse outcomes; mortality; and resource use. We highlight the need, first, for agreement on outcome definitions and, second, for a minimum core outcome set for trials involving mechanical ventilation. A minimum core outcome set would not restrict trialists from measuring additional outcomes, but would overcome problems of variability in outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, thereby enhancing comparisons across trials.

Lung clearance index: Evidence for use in clinical trials in cystic fibrosis

The ECFS-CTN Standardisation Committee has undertaken this review of lung clearance index as part of the group's work on evaluation of clinical endpoints with regard to their use in multicentre clinical trials in CF. The aims were 1) to review the literature on reliability, validity and responsiveness of LCI in patients with CF, 2) to gain consensus of the group on feasibility of LCI and 3) to gain consensus on answers to key questions regarding the promotion of LCI to surrogate endpoint status. It was concluded that LCI has an attractive feasibility and clinimetric properties profile and is particularly indicated for multicentre trials in young children with CF and patients with early or mild CF lung disease. This is the first article to collate the literature in this manner and support the use of LCI in clinical trials in CF.

Clinical Trials Abroad: The Marketable Ethics, Weak Protections and Vulnerable Subjects of EU Law

This chapter explores how the EU is a largely overlooked exporter of normative power through its facilitation and use of clinical trials data produced abroad for the marketing of safe pharmaceuticals at home; a move that helps to foster the growing resort to pharmaceuticals as a fix for public health problems. This is made possible by the EU’s (de)selection of international ethical frameworks in preference to the international technical standards it co-authors with other global regulators. Clinical trials abroad underscore how ethics are contingent and revisable in light of market needs, producing weak protections for the vulnerable subjects of EU law. I argue that these components and effects of the regime are ultimately about that which undergirds, shapes and directs regulatory design. That is, I point to the use, infiltration, perpetuation and extension of market-oriented ideas, values and rationalities into formally non-market domains like biomedical knowledge production and public health. I explain how these are central to efforts at producing and legitimating the EU, its related imagined socio-political order based on a more innovative, profitable and competitive pharmaceutical sector in order to foster economic growth, jobs and prosperity, and with them the project of European integration. ‘Bioethics as risk’ is highlighted as a way to reshape and redirect the regulatory regime in ways that are more consistent with the spirit and letter of the ethical standards (and through them the human rights) the EU claims to uphold.

Respiratory syncytial virus, an ongoing medical dilemma: an expert commentary on respiratory syncytial virus prophylactic and therapeutic pharmaceuticals currently in clinical trials

As the most important viral cause of severe respiratory disease in infants and increasing recognition as important in the elderly and immunocompromised, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for a massive health burden worldwide. Prophylactic antibodies were successfully developed against RSV. However, their use is restricted to a small group of infants considered at high risk of severe RSV disease. There is still no specific therapeutics or vaccines to combat RSV. As such, it remains a major unmet medical need for most individuals. The World Health Organisations International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and PubMed were used to identify and review all RSV vaccine, prophylactic and therapeutic candidates currently in clinical trials. This review presents an expert commentary on all RSV-specific prophylactic and therapeutic candidates that have entered clinical trials since 2008.

Dose-response relationship in phase 1 clinical trials: a European Drug Development Network (EDDN) Collaboration Study

Introduction: Because a dose–response relationship is characteristic of conventional chemotherapy, this concept is widely used for the development of novel cytotoxic (CTX) drugs. However, the need to reach the MTD to obtain optimal benefit with molecularly targeted agents (MTA) is controversial. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between dose and efficacy in a large cohort of phase I patients with solid tumors.

Experimental Design: We collected data on 1,182 consecutive patients treated in phase I trials in 14 European institutions in 2005–2007. Inclusion criteria were: (i) patients treated within completed single-agent studies in which a maximum-administered dose was defined and (ii) RECIST/survival data available.

Results: Seventy-two percent of patients were included in trials with MTA (N = 854) and 28% in trials with CTX (N = 328). The objective response (OR) rate was 3% and disease control at 6 months was 11%. OR for CTX was associated with higher doses (median 92% of MTD); this was not the case for MTA, where patients achieving OR received a median of 50% of MTD. For trials with MTA, patients treated at intermediate doses (40%–80%) had better survival compared with those receiving low or high doses (P = 0.038). On the contrary, there was a direct association between higher dose and better OS for CTX agents (P = 0.003).

Conclusion: Although these results support the development of novel CTX based on MTD, we found no direct relationship between higher doses and response with MTA in unselected patients. However, the longest OS was seen in patients treated with MTA at intermediate doses (40%–80% of MTD)

UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs.

RESULTS: Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing.

CONCLUSION: There is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.

Is the raised volume rapid thoracic compression technique ready for use in clinical trials in infants with cystic fibrosis?

The European Cystic Fibrosis Society Clinical Trial Network (ECFS-CTN) has established a Standardization Committee to undertake a rigorous evaluation of promising outcome measures with regard to use in multicentre clinical trials in cystic fibrosis (CF). The aim of this article is to present a review of literature on clinimetric properties of the infant raised-volume rapid thoracic compression (RVRTC) technique in the context of CF, to summarise the consensus amongst the group on feasibility and answer key questions regarding the promotion of this technique to surrogate endpoint status.

METHODS: A literature search (from 1985 onwards) identified 20 papers that met inclusion criteria of RVRTC use in infants with CF. Data were extracted and tabulated regarding repeatability, validity, correlation with other outcome measures, responsiveness and reference values. A working group discussed the tables and answered 4 key questions.

RESULTS: Overall, RVRTC in particular forced expiratory volume in 0.5s, showed good clinimetric properties despite presence of individual variability. Few studies showed a relationship between RVRTC and inflammation and infection, and to date, data remains limited regarding the responsiveness of RVRTC after an intervention. Concerns were raised regarding feasibility in multi-centre studies and availability of reference values.

CONCLUSION: The ECFS-CTN Working Group considers that RVRTC cannot be used as a primary outcome in clinical trials in infants with CF before universal standardization of this measurement is achieved and implementation of inter-institutional networking is in place. We advise its use currently in phase I/II trials and as a secondary endpoint in phase III studies. We emphasise the need for (1) more short-term variability and longitudinal 'natural history' studies, and (2) robust reference values for commercially available devices.

Personalised and Precision Medicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Panacea for Progress or Pandora's Box?

Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.

Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare methods to estimate the incidence of visual field progression used by 3 large randomized trials of glaucoma treatment by applying these methods to a common data set of annually obtained visual field measurements of patients with glaucoma followed up for an average of 6 years.

METHODS:

The methods used by the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), and the Early Manifest Glaucoma Treatment study (EMGT) were applied to 67 eyes of 56 patients with glaucoma enrolled in a 10-year natural history study of glaucoma using Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, Calif). The incidence of apparent visual field progression was estimated for each method. Extent of agreement between the methods was calculated, and time to apparent progression was compared.

RESULTS:

The proportion of patients progressing was 11%, 22%, and 23% with AGIS, CIGTS, and EMGT methods, respectively. Clinical assessment identified 23% of patients who progressed, but only half of these were also identified by CIGTS or EMGT methods. The CIGTS and the EMGT had comparable incidence rates, but only half of those identified by 1 method were also identified by the other.

CONCLUSIONS:

The EMGT and CIGTS methods produced rates of apparent progression that were twice those of the AGIS method. Although EMGT, CIGTS, and clinical assessment rates were comparable, they did not identify the same patients as having had field progression.

Methodologic rigor of clinical trials on surgical management of eyes with coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the methodologic quality of published studies of the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

DESIGN:

Literature review and analysis.

METHOD:

We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all English language articles pertaining to the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma in adults. Quality assessment was performed on all randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and cohort studies. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two experienced investigators who independently reviewed articles using an objective quality assessment form.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Quality in each of five domains (representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation) measured as the percentage of methodologic criteria met by each study.

RESULTS:

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials and 45 other studies were evaluated. The mean quality score for the randomized, controlled clinical trials was 63% (range, 11%-88%), and for the other studies the score was 45% (range, 3%-83%). The mean domain scores were 65% for description of therapy (range, 0%-100%), 62% for statistical analysis (range, 0%-100%), 58% for representativeness (range, 0%-94%), 49% for outcomes assessment (range, 0%-83%), and 30% for bias and confounding (range, 0%-83%). Twenty-five of the studies (31%) received a score of 0% in the bias and confounding domain for not randomizing patients, not masking the observers to treatment group, and not having equivalent groups at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS:

Greater methodologic rigor and more detailed reporting of study results, particularly in the area of bias and confounding, could improve the quality of published clinical studies assessing the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

The EU Clinical Trials Regulation: Key Priorities, Purposes and Aims and the Implications for Public Health

The replacement of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive by the new Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which entered into force on 16 June 2014 but will not apply before 28 May 2016, provides an opportunity to review the legal and political context within which this important aspect of research law and policy sits and to reflect on the implications for public health. My aim in this article is to relate the context to the key purposes and aims of EU law and policy on clinical trials in order to explain and clarify its orientation. On that basis, I argue that the CTR and the changes it introduces to the law on clinical trials are part of the EU's continued focus on market optimisation. It is this focus that orients and directs the wider pharmaceutical development pipeline, but that undermines the achievement of key public health objectives.