How do researchers decide early clinical trials?

被引:0
作者
Hannah Grankvist
Jonathan Kimmelman
机构
[1] Linköping University,Department of Thematic Studies – Technology and Social Change
[2] McGill University,Studies for Translation, Research Ethics, and Medicine (STREAM), Biomedical Ethics Unit/Social Studies of Medicine
来源
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | 2016年 / 19卷
关键词
Decision-making; Research ethics; Risk/benefit; Phase 1 trials; Policy; Translational research;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Launch of clinical investigation represents a substantial escalation in commitment to a particular clinical translation trajectory; it also exposes human subjects to poorly understood interventions. Despite these high stakes, there is little to guide decision-makers on the scientific and ethical evaluation of early phase trials. In this article, we review policies and consensus statements on human protections, drug regulation, and research design surrounding trial launch, and conclude that decision-making is largely left to the discretion of research teams and sponsors. We then review what is currently understood about how research teams exercise this discretion, and close by laying out a research agenda for characterizing the way investigators, sponsors, and reviewers approach decision-making in early phase research.
引用
收藏
页码:191 / 198
页数:7
相关论文
共 70 条
  • [1] Alper J(2009)Geron gets green light for human trial of ES-derived product Nature Biotechnology 27 213-214
  • [2] Couzin J(1997)Critical role of phase I clinical trials in cancer treatment Journal of Clinical Oncology 15 853-859
  • [3] Vogel G(2004)Cell therapy. Renovating the heart Science 304 192-194
  • [4] Deakin CT(2013)Gene therapy researchers’ assessment of risk and perception of risk acceptability in clinical trials Molecular Therapy 21 806-813
  • [5] Alexander IE(2004)First dose of potential new medicines to humans: How animals help Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 3 226-236
  • [6] Hooker CA(2013)Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: A systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments PLoS Medicine 10 e1001489-285
  • [7] Kerridge IH(2009)Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals PLoS One 4 e7824-830
  • [8] Greaves P(2011)Predicting harms and benefits in translational trials: Ethics, evidence, and uncertainty PLoS Medicine 8 e1001010-1448
  • [9] Williams A(2013)RIGOR guidelines: Escalating STAIR and STEPS for effective translational research Translational Stroke Research 4 279-768
  • [10] Eve M(2010)Beyond access vs. protection in trials of innovative therapies Science 328 829-S24