Ethical issues of human genetic databases : a challenge to classical health research ethics?

[Contents] - Introduction - Selected existing genetic database : distinctive features, ethical problems and the public debate - The ethical debate : principles, values and interests : the ethical foundations of guidelines - Selected issues of consensus and of controversy - Ethical issues of human genetic databases and the future This book compares the new area of biobanking with the tradition of ethically accepted classical research and highlights the distinctive features of existing databases and guidelines

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

Need of reduced and harmonized bureaucracy in multi-centre clinical research - a case-report from a Swiss trial

Introduction We launched an investigator-initiated study(ISRCTN31181395) to evaluate the potential benefit of pharmacokinetic-guided dosage individualization of imatinib for leukaemia patients followed in public and private sectors. Following approval by the research ethics committee (REC) of the coordinating centre, recruitment throughout Switzerland necessitated to submit the protocol to 11 cantonal RECs.Materials and Methods We analysed requirements and evaluation procedures of the 12 RECs with associated costs.Results 1-18 copies of the dossier, in total 4300 printed pages, were required (printing/posting costs: ~300 CHF) to meet initial requirements. Meeting frequencies of RECs ranged between 2 weeks and 2 months, time from submission to first feedback took 2-75 days. Study approval was obtained from a chairman, a subor the full committee, the evaluation work being invoiced by 0-1000 CHF (median: 750 CHF, total: 9200 CHF). While 5 RECs gave immediate approval, the other 6 rose in total 38 queries before study release, mainly related to wording in the patient information, leading to 7 different final versions approved. Submission tasks employed an investigator half-time over about 6 months.Conclusion While the necessity of clinical research evaluation by independent RECs is undisputed, there is a need of further harmonization and cooperation in evaluation procedures. Current administrative burden is indeed complex, time-consuming and costly. A harmonized electronic application form, preferably compatible with other regulatory bodies and European countries, could increase transparency, improve communication, and encourage academic multi-centre clinical research in Switzerland.

Need of reduced and harmonized bureaucracy in multi-centre clinical research - a case-report from a Swiss trial

Introduction: We launched an investigator-initiated study (ISRCTN31181395) to evaluate the potential benefit of pharmacokinetic-guided dosage individualization of imatinib for leukaemiapatients followed in public and private sectors. Following approval by the research ethics committee (REC) of the coordinating centre, recruitment throughout Switzerland necessitatedto submit the protocol to 11 cantonal RECs.Materials and Methods: We analysed requirements and evaluation procedures of the 12 RECs with associated costs.Results: 1-18 copies of the dossier, in total 4300 printed pages, were required (printing/posting costs: ~300 CHF) to meet initial requirements. Meeting frequencies of RECs ranged between 2 weeks and 2 months, time from submission to fi rst feedback took 2-75 days. Study approval was obtained from a chairman, a subor the full committee, the evaluation work being invoiced by0-1000 CHF (median: 750 CHF, total: 9200 CHF). While 5 RECs gave immediate approval, the other 6 rose in total 38 queries before study release, mainly related to wording in the patient information, leading to 7 different fi nal versions approved. Submission tasks employed an investigator half-time over about 6 months.Conclusion: While the necessity of clinical research evaluation by independent RECs is undisputed, there is a need of further harmonization and cooperation in evaluation procedures. Current administrative burden is indeed complex, time-consuming and costly. A harmonized electronic application form, preferably compatible with other regulatory bodies and European countries, could increase transparency, improve communication, and encourage academic multi-centre clinical research in Switzerland.

Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications.

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION: Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.

Fate of clinical research studies after ethical approval--follow-up of study protocols until publication.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical studies are ultimately not fully published in peer-reviewed journals. Underreporting of clinical research is wasteful and can result in biased estimates of treatment effect or harm, leading to recommendations that are inappropriate or even dangerous. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of clinical studies approved 2000-2002 by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Freiburg, Germany. Published full articles were searched in electronic databases and investigators contacted. Data on study characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. We characterized the cohort, quantified its publication outcome and compared protocols and publications for selected aspects. RESULTS: Of 917 approved studies, 807 were started and 110 were not, either locally or as a whole. Of the started studies, 576 (71%) were completed according to protocol, 128 (16%) discontinued and 42 (5%) are still ongoing; for 61 (8%) there was no information about their course. We identified 782 full publications corresponding to 419 of the 807 initiated studies; the publication proportion was 52% (95% CI: 0.48-0.55). Study design was not significantly associated with subsequent publication. Multicentre status, international collaboration, large sample size and commercial or non-commercial funding were positively associated with subsequent publication. Commercial funding was mentioned in 203 (48%) protocols and in 205 (49%) of the publications. In most published studies (339; 81%) this information corresponded between protocol and publication. Most studies were published in English (367; 88%); some in German (25; 6%) or both languages (27; 6%). The local investigators were listed as (co-)authors in the publications corresponding to 259 (62%) studies. CONCLUSION: Half of the clinical research conducted at a large German university medical centre remains unpublished; future research is built on an incomplete database. Research resources are likely wasted as neither health care professionals nor patients nor policy makers can use the results when making decisions.

Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Methodological research has found that non-published studies often have different results than those that are published, a phenomenon known as publication bias. When results are not published, or are published selectively based on the direction or the strength of the findings, healthcare professionals and consumers of healthcare cannot base their decision-making on the full body of current evidence. METHODS: As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:1. To determine the proportion and/or rate of non-publication of studies by systematically reviewing methodological research projects that followed up a cohort of studies that a. received research ethics committee (REC) approval,b. were registered in trial registries, orc. were presented as abstracts at conferences.2. To assess the association of study characteristics (for example, direction and/or strength of findings) with likelihood of full publication.To identify reports of relevant methodological research projects we will conduct electronic database searches, check reference lists, and contact experts. Published and unpublished projects will be included. The inclusion criteria are as follows:a. RECs: methodological research projects that examined the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies that received approval from RECs;b. Trial registries: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies registered in trial registries;c. Conference abstracts: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of full publication of studies which were initially presented at conferences as abstracts.Primary outcomes: Proportion/rate of published studies; time to full publication (mean/median; cumulative publication rate by time).Secondary outcomes: Association of study characteristics with full publication.The different questions (a, b, and c) will be investigated separately. Data synthesis will involve a combination of descriptive and statistical summaries of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013.

Les bonnes pratiques dompteront-elles la recherche clinique [Will good clinical practice domesticate human research?]

During recent years, an increasingly comprehensive set of rules and guidelines has been developed around clinical trials, to ensure their proper ethical, methodological, administrative and financial conduct. While initially limited to new drug development, this regulation is progressively invading all areas of clinical research, with limited respect for the heterogeneity in aims, resources, sponsors and epistemological grounds. No clinical study should be planned without consideration of a series of legal requirements, which are reviewed. Concerns about their practical implications are critically assessed.

Multimorbidity in primary care : protocol of a national cross-sectional study in Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: With the ageing of the population and the general improvement of care, an increasing number of people are living with multiple chronic health conditions or 'multimorbidity'. Multimorbidity often implies multiple medical treatments. As a consequence, the risk of adverse events and the time spent by patients for their treatments increase exponentially. In many cases, treatment guidelines traditionally defined for single conditions are not easily applicable. Primary care for individuals with multimorbidity requires complex patient-centred care and good communication between the patient and the general practitioner (GP). This often includes prioritising among the different chronic conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The main objectives of this study are to describe the burden related to multimorbidity (disease-related burden and burden of treatment) in primary care and to identify the factors influencing it. Other objectives include evaluating patients' perception of treatment burden and quality of life, assessing factors influencing that perception, and investigating prioritisation in the management of multimorbidity from the perspectives of GPs and patients. For this cross-sectional study, patient enrolment will take place in GP's private practices across Switzerland. A convenient sample of 100 GPs will participate; overall, 1000 patients with at least three chronic health conditions will be enrolled. Data will be collected as paper-based questionnaires for GPs and delayed telephone interview questionnaires for patients. GPs will provide demographic and practice-related data. In addition, each GP will complete a paper-based questionnaire for each patient that they enrol. Each patient will complete a telephone interview questionnaire. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the research ethics committee of Canton Vaud, Switzerland (Protocol 315/14). The results of the study will be reported in international peer-reviewed journals.

Retrospective research: What are the ethical and legal requirements?

Retrospective research is conducted on already available data and/or biologic material. Whether such research requires that patients specifically consent to the use of "their" data continues to stir controversy. From a legal and ethical point of view, it depends on several factors. The main criteria to be considered are whether the data or the sample is anonymous, whether the researcher is the one who collected it and whether the patient was told of the possible research use. In Switzerland, several laws delineate the procedure to be followed. The definition of "anonymous" is open to some interpretation. In addition, it is debatable whether consent waivers that are legally admissible for data extend to research involving human biological samples. In a few years, a new Swiss federal law on human research could clarify the regulatory landscape. Meanwhile, hospital-internal guidelines may impose stricter conditions than required by federal or cantonal law. Conversely, Swiss and European ethical texts may suggest greater flexibility and call for a looser interpretation of existing laws. The present article provides an overview of the issues for physicians, scientists, ethics committee members and policy makers involved in retrospective research in Switzerland. It aims at provoking more open discussions of the regulatory problems and possible future legal and ethical solutions.

Research involving biological material from forensic autopsies: legal and ethical issues.

Recommendations and laws do not always contain specific and clear provisions on the use of cadaveric material in research, and even more rarely do they address explicitly the ethical issues related to research on material obtained during forensic autopsy. In this article we analyse existing legal frameworks in Europe by comparing the legal provisions in 2 European Countries which are member states of the Council of Europe, the UK and Switzerland. They were chosen because they have distinct legal frameworks that make comparisons interesting. In addition, the detailed laws of the UK and a specific law project and national ethical recommendations in Switzerland permit us to define more clearly the legal range of options for researchers using cadaveric material obtained during forensic investigations. The Human Tissue Act 2004 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, its Scottish equivalent with the same title (2006) and the national ethical guidelines in Switzerland all require consent from the deceased person, an appropriate relative or a person with power of attorney for healthcare decisions before cadaveric biological material can be obtained and used for research. However, if the purpose of the autopsy is purely forensic, no such authorization will be sought to carry out the autopsy and related analyses, which might include genetic testing. In order to be allowed to carry out future research projects, families need to be approached for informed consent, unless the deceased person had left written directives including permission to use his or her tissues for research.

Quantitative Measurement of Brain Perfusion with Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MR Imaging.

Purpose: To evaluate the sensitivity of the perfusion parameters derived from Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) MR imaging to hypercapnia-induced vasodilatation and hyperoxygenation-induced vasoconstriction in the human brain. Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the local ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Images were acquired with a standard pulsed-gradient spin-echo sequence (Stejskal-Tanner) in a clinical 3-T system by using 16 b values ranging from 0 to 900 sec/mm(2). Seven healthy volunteers were examined while they inhaled four different gas mixtures known to modify brain perfusion (pure oxygen, ambient air, 5% CO(2) in ambient air, and 8% CO(2) in ambient air). Diffusion coefficient (D), pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f), and blood flow-related parameter (fD*) maps were calculated on the basis of the IVIM biexponential model, and the parametric maps were compared among the four different gas mixtures. Paired, one-tailed Student t tests were performed to assess for statistically significant differences. Results: Signal decay curves were biexponential in the brain parenchyma of all volunteers. When compared with inhaled ambient air, the IVIM perfusion parameters D*, f, and fD* increased as the concentration of inhaled CO(2) was increased (for the entire brain, P = .01 for f, D*, and fD* for CO(2) 5%; P = .02 for f, and P = .01 for D* and fD* for CO(2) 8%), and a trend toward a reduction was observed when participants inhaled pure oxygen (although P > .05). D remained globally stable. Conclusion: The IVIM perfusion parameters were reactive to hyperoxygenation-induced vasoconstriction and hypercapnia-induced vasodilatation. Accordingly, IVIM imaging was found to be a valid and promising method to quantify brain perfusion in humans. © RSNA, 2012.

Colorectal cancer metastasis: the DNA repair inhibitor Dbait increases sensitivity to hyperthermia and improves efficacy of radiofrequency ablation.

PURPOSE: To assess the usefulness of combining hyperthermia with a DNA repair inhibitor (double-strand break bait [Dbait]) and its potential application to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in a preclinical model of human colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The local ethics committee of animal experimentation approved all investigations. First, the relevance was assessed by studying the survival of four human colorectal adenocarcinoma cell cultures after 1 hour of hyperthermia at 41°C or 43°C with or without Dbait. Human colon adenocarcinoma cells (HT-29) were grafted subcutaneously into nude mice (n = 111). When tumors reached approximately 500 mm(3), mice were treated with Dbait alone (n = 20), sublethal RFA (n = 21), three different Dbait schemes and sublethal RFA (n = 52), or a sham treatment (n = 18). RFA was performed to ablate the tumor center alone. To elucidate antitumor mechanisms, 39 mice were sacrificed for blinded pathologic analysis, including assessment of DNA damage, cell proliferation, and tumor necrosis. Others were monitored for tumor growth and survival. Analyses of variance and log-rank tests were used to evaluate differences. RESULTS: When associated with mild hyperthermia, Dbait induced cytotoxicity in all tested colon cancer cell lines. Sublethal RFA or Dbait treatment alone moderately improved survival (median, 40 days vs 28 days for control; P = .0005) but combination treatment significantly improved survival (median, 84 days vs 40 days for RFA alone, P = .0004), with approximately half of the animals showing complete tumor responses. Pathologic studies showed that the Dbait and RFA combination strongly enhances DNA damage and coagulation areas in tumors. CONCLUSION: Combining Dbait with RFA sensitizes the tumor periphery to mild hyperthermia and increases RFA antitumor efficacy.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.