Clinical trials, informed consent, & emergency medicine: A systematic literature review

Background: In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates clinical trials. These regulations address good clinical practices as well as human subject protection (FDA, 2012). One of the most important legal and ethical concerns in clinical trials is informed consent. 21 CFR 50 governs human subjects research. Part 50.24 provides an emergency research exception to the informed consent requirement. Research was conducted to determine the appropriateness of this exception, whether the benefit justifies the exception, and its public health significance.^ Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted and articles were identified from peer-reviewed journals.^ Results: There is some variance in opinions regarding the appropriateness of the exception, but the literature reviewed found the study results of these trials justified the waiver.^ Conclusion: The exception to the informed consent requirement is likely appropriate and justified in emergency research when implemented within the specified guidelines.^

The mark of a good healer: Examining health care behaviors in the Vietnamese community

The purpose of this study was to conduct a descriptive, exploratory analysis of the utilization of both traditional healing methods and western biomedical approaches to health care among members of the Vietnamese community in Houston, Texas. The first goal of the study was to identify the type(s) of health care that the Vietnamese use. The second goal was to highlight the numerous factors that may influence why certain health care choices are made. The third goal of this study was to examine the issue of preference to determine which practices would be used if limiting factors did not exist. ^ There were 81 participants, consisting of males and females who were 18 years or older. The core groups of participants were Vietnamese students from the University of Houston-Downtown and volunteer staff members from VN TeamWork. Asking the students and staff members to recommend others for the study used the snowball method of recruiting additional participants. ^ Surveys and informed consents were in English and Vietnamese. The participants were given the choice to take the surveys face-to-face or on their own. Surveys consisted of structured questions with predetermined choices, as well as, open-ended questions to allow more detailed information. The quantitative and qualitative data were coded and entered into a database, using SPSS software version 15.0. ^ Results indicated that participants used both traditional (38.3%) and biomedical (59.3%) healing, with 44.4% stating that it depended on the illness as to treatment. Coining was the most used traditional healing method, clearly still used by all ages. Coining was also the method most used when issues regarding fear and delayed western medical treatment were involved. It was determined that insurance status, more than household income, guided health care choices. A person's age, number of years spent in the United States, age at migration, and the use of certain traditional healing methods like coining all played a role in the importance of the health care practitioner speaking Vietnamese. The most important finding was that 64.2% of the participants preferred both traditional and western medicine because both methods work. ^

A review of economic analysis in the vaccination program; decision making and governance: Adivisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) develops written recommendations for the routine administration of vaccines to children and adults in the U.S. civilian population. The ACIP is the only entity in the federal government that makes such recommendations. ACIP elaborates on selection of its members and rules out concerns regarding its integrity, but fails to provide information about the importance of economic analysis in vaccine selection. ACIP recommendations can have large health and economic consequences. Emphasis on economic evaluation in health is a likely response to severe pressures of the federal and state health budget. This study describes the economic aspects considered by the ACIP while sanctioning a vaccine, and reviews the economic evaluations (our economic data) provided for vaccine deliberations. A five year study period from 2004 to 2009 is adopted. Publicly available data from ACIP web database is used. Drummond et al. (2005) checklist serves as a guide to assess the quality of economic evaluations presented. Drummond et al.'s checklist is a comprehensive hence it is unrealistic to expect every ACIP deliberation to meet all of their criteria. For practical purposes we have selected seven criteria that we judge to be significant criteria provided by Drummond et al. Twenty-four data points were obtained in a five year period. Our results show that out of the total twenty-four data point‘s (economic evaluations) only five data points received a score of six; that is six items on the list of seven were met. None of the data points received a perfect score of seven. Seven of the twenty-four data points received a score of five. A minimum of a two score was received by only one of the economic analyses. The type of economic evaluation along with the model criteria and ICER/QALY criteria met at 0.875 (87.5%). These three criteria were met at the highest rate among the seven criteria studied. Our study findings demonstrate that the perspective criteria met at 0.583 (58.3%) followed by source and sensitivity analysis criteria both tied at 0.541 (54.1%). The discount factor was met at 0.250 (25.0%).^ Economic analysis is not a novel concept to the ACIP. It has been practiced and presented at these meetings on a regular basis for more than five years. ACIP‘s stated goal is to utilize good quality epidemiologic, clinical and economic analyses to help policy makers choose among alternatives presented and thus achieve a better informed decision. As seen in our study the economic analyses over the years are inconsistent. The large variability coupled with lack of a standardized format may compromise the utility of the economic information for decision-making. While making recommendations, the ACIP takes into account all available information about a vaccine. Thus it is vital that standardized high quality economic information is provided at the ACIP meetings. Our study may provide a call for the ACIP to further investigate deficiencies within the system and thereby to improve economic evaluation data presented. ^