New Sites, New Challenges? Ethical and Methodological Questions in the Context of Research on Migration Exclusion

The challenges of research ethics and methodologies have been reflected on extensively, but – aside from the context of feminist methodologies – less so in relation to research on particular migration sites such as in transit, detention centres, at the borders or within migration administration. First attempts in this direction have been made (Düvell et al. 2010, Fresia et al. 2005, Riedner 2014, van Liempt/Bilger2009), however, more reflection and theorization is needed, considering the contested nature of these temporal and volatile sites. In this workshop, we thus aim at examining methodological as well as ethical questions that arise during field work: We attempt to reflect the power relations involved in the research process, the ethics of research design, the dissemination of research results, the question of gaining access to and – whenever necessary – staying in contact with our research subjects. How can we negotiate informed consent with subjects whose life is currently marked by transit and insecurity concerning their own future, and who are in an uncertain situation in which substantial information (legal, social, cultural etc.) is likely to be missing? How do we deal with the dilemma of possibly contributing to knowledge production that might facilitate removals and deportations in the future, considering that the reception of the results is not in the hands of the researchers? How do we deal with the anticipated as well as unexpected impacts of our research on social and political practice? Regarding fieldwork in state institutions, how do we negotiate the multiple loyalties we often find ourselves faced with as social researchers, both with the excluded migrants and with the authorities implementing the exclusions – two groupings considered to be opposite to each other (Lavanchy 2013)? Which different roles do researchers need to take on? The aim of our workshop is first and foremost to exchange experiences on fieldwork with others doing qualitative research on related topics and to consider its possible implications – including affective dimensions – for all participants involved in the research process: the migrants, the security staff of detention centres, its social workers, border police and bureaucrats and, last but not least, the researchers themselves. Furthermore, we generally wish to reflect upon the question of how best to conduct research in this contested field, applying an interdisciplinary perspective.

Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing real versus placebo acupuncture to improve tolerance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation: a study protocol

Background Sedation prior to performance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDE) is widespread and increases patient comfort. But 98% of all serious adverse events during EGDEs are ascribed to sedation. The S3 guideline for sedation procedures in gastrointestinal endoscopy published in 2008 in Germany increases patient safety by standardization. These new regulations increase costs because of the need for more personnel and a prolonged discharge procedure after examinations with sedation. Many patients have difficulties to meet the discharge criteria regulated by the S3 guideline, e.g. the call for a second person to escort them home, to resign from driving and working for the rest of the day, resulting in a refusal of sedation. Therefore, we would like to examine if an acupuncture during elective, diagnostic EGDEs could increase the comfort of patients refusing systemic sedation. Methods/Design A single-center, double blinded, placebo controlled superiority trial to compare the success rates of elective, diagnostic EGDEs with real and placebo acupuncture. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for elective, diagnostic EGDE who refuse a systemic sedation are eligible. 354 patients will be randomized. The primary endpoint is the rate of successful EGDEs with the randomized technique. Intervention: Real or placebo acupuncture before and during EGDE. Duration of study: Approximately 24 months. Discussion Organisation/Responsibility The ACUPEND - Trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Center (IEZ) of the University Hospital Heidelberg is responsible for design and conduct of the trial, including randomization and documentation of patients' data. Data management and statistical analysis will be performed by the independent Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI) and the Center of Clinical Trials (KSC) at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg.

Proposal on How To Conduct a Biopharmaceutical Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) as a Risk Assessment Tool

With the publication of the quality guideline ICH Q9 "Quality Risk Management" by the International Conference on Harmonization, risk management has already become a standard requirement during the life cycle of a pharmaceutical product. Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a powerful risk analysis tool that has been used for decades in mechanical and electrical industries. However, the adaptation of the FMEA methodology to biopharmaceutical processes brings about some difficulties. The proposal presented here is intended to serve as a brief but nevertheless comprehensive and detailed guideline on how to conduct a biopharmaceutical process FMEA. It includes a detailed 1-to-10-scale FMEA rating table for occurrence, severity, and detectability of failures that has been especially designed for typical biopharmaceutical processes. The application for such a biopharmaceutical process FMEA is widespread. It can be useful whenever a biopharmaceutical manufacturing process is developed or scaled-up, or when it is transferred to a different manufacturing site. It may also be conducted during substantial optimization of an existing process or the development of a second-generation process. According to their resulting risk ratings, process parameters can be ranked for importance and important variables for process development, characterization, or validation can be identified. LAY ABSTRACT: Health authorities around the world ask pharmaceutical companies to manage risk during development and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. The so-called failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is an established risk analysis tool that has been used for decades in mechanical and electrical industries. However, the adaptation of the FMEA methodology to pharmaceutical processes that use modern biotechnology (biopharmaceutical processes) brings about some difficulties, because those biopharmaceutical processes differ from processes in mechanical and electrical industries. The proposal presented here explains how a biopharmaceutical process FMEA can be conducted. It includes a detailed 1-to-10-scale FMEA rating table for occurrence, severity, and detectability of failures that has been especially designed for typical biopharmaceutical processes. With the help of this guideline, different details of the manufacturing process can be ranked according to their potential risks, and this can help pharmaceutical companies to identify aspects with high potential risks and to react accordingly to improve the safety of medicines.

Design, conduct, and analysis of a multicenter, pharmacogenomic, biomarker study in matched patients with severe sepsis treated with or without drotrecogin Alfa (activated)

A genomic biomarker identifying patients likely to benefit from drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) may be clinically useful as a companion diagnostic. This trial was designed to validate biomarkers (improved response polymorphisms (IRPs)). Each IRP (A and B) contains two single nucleotide polymorphisms that were associated with a differential DAA treatment effect.

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied. METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151). CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

Better conduct of clinical trials: the control group in critical care trials

OBJECTIVE: To review trial design issues related to control groups. DESIGN: Review of the literature with specific reference to critical care trials. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Performing randomized controlled trials in the critical care setting presents specific problems: studies include patients with rapidly lethal conditions, the majority of intensive care patients suffer from syndromes rather than from well-definable diseases, the severity of such syndromes cannot be precisely assessed, and the treatment consists of interacting therapies. Interactions between physiology, pathophysiology, and therapies are at best marginally understood and may have a major impact on study design and interpretation of results. Selection of the right control group is crucial for the interpretation and clinical implementation of results. Studies comparing new interventions with current ones or different levels of current treatments have the problem of the necessity of defining "usual care." Usual care controls without any constraints typically include substantial heterogeneity. Constraints in the usual therapy may help to reduce some variation. Inclusion of unrestricted usual care groups may help to enhance safety. Practice misalignment is a novel problem in which patients receive a treatment that is the direct opposite of usual care, and occurs when fixed-dose interventions are used in situations where care is normally titrated. Practice misalignment should be considered in the design and interpretation of studies on titrated therapies.

[Mass culling in the context of animal disease outbreaks--veterinarians caught between ethical issues and control policies]

In recent years controversial discussions arose during major animal disease outbreaks in the EU about the ethical soundness of mass culling. In contrast to numerous publications about ethical issues and laboratory animals/animal experiments, literature concerning ethical deliberations in the case of mass culling as a means of outbreak control remain scarce. Veterinarians in charge of decision about and implementation of mass culling actions find themselves in an area of conflict in between the officially required animal disease control policy and a public that is increasingly critical. Those veterinarians are faced with the challenge to defend the relevant decisions against all stakeholders and also themselves. In this context an interdisciplinary workshop was initiated in Switzerland in October 2007 with ethicians and (official) veterinarians from Germany, Switzerland and Austria. With the aim to identify ethical components of animal disease control for official veterinarians, talks and moderated group discussions took place. This article summarizes selected discussion points and conclusions.

Consumer Behavior in Moral Markets. On the Relevance of Identity, Justice Beliefs, Social Norms, Status and Trust in Ethical Consumption

This article addresses ethical consumer behavior and uses the purchase of Fair Trade (FT) coffee to gain insights into determinants of ‘moral behavior’ in the marketplace. Our primary concern is to clarify which theoretical concepts and determinants are more useful than others in explaining FT consumption. We compare the explanatory power of consumer budget restrictions, consumer identity, social and personal norms, social status, justice beliefs, and trust. Our second aim is methodological; we contrast data on self-reported consumption of FT coffee with experimental data on hypothetical choices of different coffee products. To gain insights into the robustness of our measurement and findings, we test our propositions using two samples of undergraduate students from Germany and the United States. Our data show that consumer identity and personal norms are the major determinants of FT consumption in both samples, the results from survey-based data and from our experimental data are similar in this regard. Further, we demonstrate that studies based on a limited number of determinants might overestimate effects; the effect of justice beliefs for instance vanishes if other determinants are taken into account.

Initiation and continuation of randomized trials after the publication of a trial stopped early for benefit asking the same study question: STOPIT-3 study design

BACKGROUND Randomized control trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) are increasingly common and, on average, overestimate the relative magnitude of benefit by approximately 30%. Investigators stop trials early when they consider it is no longer ethical to enroll patients in a control group. The goal of this systematic review is to determine how investigators of ongoing or planned RCTs respond to the publication of a truncated RCT addressing a similar question. METHODS/DESIGN We will conduct systematic reviews to update the searches of 210 truncated RCTs to identify similar trials ongoing at the time of publication, or started subsequently, to the truncated trials ('subsequent RCTs'). Reviewers will determine in duplicate the similarity between the truncated and subsequent trials. We will analyze the epidemiology, distribution, and predictors of subsequent RCTs. We will also contact authors of subsequent trials to determine reasons for beginning, continuing, or prematurely discontinuing their own trials, and the extent to which they rely on the estimates from truncated trials. DISCUSSION To the extent that investigators begin or continue subsequent trials they implicitly disagree with the decision to stop the truncated RCT because of an ethical mandate to administer the experimental treatment. The results of this study will help guide future decisions about when to stop RCTs early for benefit.