The principle of benefit from drug development for patients in clinical research

From an ethical perspective, clinical research involving humans is only acceptable if it involves the potential for benefit. Various characteristics can be applied to differentiate research benefit. Often benefit is categorized in direct or indirect benefit, whereby indirect benefit might be further differentiated in collective or benefit for the society, excluding or including the trial patient in the long term. Ethical guidelines, such as the Declaration of Helsinki in its latest version, do not precisely favor a particular type of benefit.

Clinical Research and Standard of Care — An Unresolved Question?

Ever since the 1996 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, the World Medical Association has attempted to address ethical and scientific concerns of its diverse stakeholders for Articles 33 (use of placebo) and 34 (posttrial provisions), most recently in 2013. Both are inextricably linked to standard of care, an essential element of any comparative, interventional clinical trial. But has this now 20-year-long ethical debate truly been put to rest? The choice of standard of care in clinical trials remains a complex issue, particularly for comparative trials conducted in emerging countries.

Publication Bias

According to the Declaration of Helsinki, as well as the Statement on Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results of the World Health Organization, every researcher has the ethical obligation to publish research results on all trials with human participants in a complete and accurate way within 12 months after the end of the trial.1,2 Nevertheless, for several reasons, not all research results are published in an accurate way in case they are released at all. This phenomenon of publication bias may not only create a false impression on the reliability of clinical research business, but it may also affect the evidence of clinical conclusions about the best treatments, which are mostly based on published data and results.