Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pediatrics 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Debate

The ethical justification for inclusion of neonates in pragmatic randomized clinical trials for emergency newborn care

Author: Dan Kabonge Kaye

Published in: BMC Pediatrics | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Research guidelines generally recognize vulnerable populations to include neonates with the aim of enhancing protections from harm. In practice, such guidance results in limiting participation in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Yet while medical care of neonates should be based on best research evidence to ensure that safe, efficacious treatment or procedures are used, this seldom happens in contemporary practice.

Discussion

The compelling need to generate information on effectiveness and safety of procedures and medications that are already in use during neonatal care has led to increase in calls for pragmatic randomized clinical trials (PCTs). This raises ethical concerns as to whether exclusion of the vulnerable populations from research participations constitutes harm. First, neonates are denied access to both potentially beneficial research outputs and an opportunity to generate data on how interventions or medications perform in diverse clinical settings and inform clinical decision-making. Secondly, risks and harms in PCTs may differ from traditional RCTs, and can be reduced by modifications in study designs. The latter may involve assessment of effectiveness of comparable medication, devices or practices (whose safety data is available), randomization at the group level rather than at the individual level, avoidance of invasive and innovative study procedures, reliance on locally available data on relevant patient outcomes, and employment of procedures that tend to meet the criteria of minimal risk for human subject research. Thirdly, informed consent procedures should be modified from those of traditional RCTs, as neonates in traditional RCTs may be vulnerable to different extents in PCTs. Lastly, regulatory and oversight procedures designed for traditional RCT settings need modification, as they may not be translatable, feasible, appropriate or even ethical to apply in PCTs.

Conclusion

The principle of justice, commonly interpreted as preventing an inequitable burden of research, should also allow fair access to potential benefits from PCTs for neonates and other vulnerable populations. Under certain conditions, prospective randomized trials involving neonates should be ethically permissible to allow inclusion of neonates in research. This may require modification of the research design, consent procedures or regulations for research oversight.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Baer GR, Nelson RM. Ethics Group of the Newborn Drug Development Initiative Ethical challenges in neonatal research: summary report of the ethics group of the newborn drug development initiative. Clin Ther. 2006;28(9):1399–407.CrossRef Baer GR, Nelson RM. Ethics Group of the Newborn Drug Development Initiative Ethical challenges in neonatal research: summary report of the ethics group of the newborn drug development initiative. Clin Ther. 2006;28(9):1399–407.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Fleischman AR. Ethical issues in neonatal research involving human subjects. Semin Perinatol. 2016;40(4):247–53.CrossRef Fleischman AR. Ethical issues in neonatal research involving human subjects. Semin Perinatol. 2016;40(4):247–53.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Davis JM, Connor EM, Wood AJ. The need for rigorous evidence on medication use in preterm infants: is it time for a neonatal rule. JAMA. 2012;308:1435–6.CrossRef Davis JM, Connor EM, Wood AJ. The need for rigorous evidence on medication use in preterm infants: is it time for a neonatal rule. JAMA. 2012;308:1435–6.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Nasr VG, Davis JM. Anesthetic use in newborn infants: the urgent need for rigorous evaluation. Pediatr Res. 2015;78(1):2–6.CrossRef Nasr VG, Davis JM. Anesthetic use in newborn infants: the urgent need for rigorous evaluation. Pediatr Res. 2015;78(1):2–6.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Brierley J, Larcher V. Emergency research in children: options for ethical recruitment. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(7):429–32.CrossRef Brierley J, Larcher V. Emergency research in children: options for ethical recruitment. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(7):429–32.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Neyro V, Elie V, Thiele N, Jacqz-Aigrain E. Clinical trials in neonates: how to optimise informed consent and decision making? A European Delphi survey of parent representatives and clinicians. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0198097.CrossRef Neyro V, Elie V, Thiele N, Jacqz-Aigrain E. Clinical trials in neonates: how to optimise informed consent and decision making? A European Delphi survey of parent representatives and clinicians. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0198097.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision-making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624–32.CrossRef Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision-making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624–32.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Califf RM, Sugarman J. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:436–41.CrossRef Califf RM, Sugarman J. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:436–41.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sugarman J, Califf RM. Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA. 2014;311:2381–2.CrossRef Sugarman J, Califf RM. Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA. 2014;311:2381–2.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lantos JD. U.S. research regulations: do they reflect the views of the people they claim to protect? Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:731–2.CrossRef Lantos JD. U.S. research regulations: do they reflect the views of the people they claim to protect? Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:731–2.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Chambers CD, Polifka JE, Friedman JM. Drug safety in pregnant women and their babies: ignorance not bliss. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83:181–3.CrossRef Chambers CD, Polifka JE, Friedman JM. Drug safety in pregnant women and their babies: ignorance not bliss. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83:181–3.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Liu J, Chen XX, Wang XL. Ethical issues in neonatal intensive care units. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(14):2322–6.PubMed Liu J, Chen XX, Wang XL. Ethical issues in neonatal intensive care units. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(14):2322–6.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Welch MJ, Lally R, Miller JE, Pittman S, Brodsky L, Caplan AI, et al. The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials. Clinical Trials. 2015;12(5):503–10.CrossRef Welch MJ, Lally R, Miller JE, Pittman S, Brodsky L, Caplan AI, et al. The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials. Clinical Trials. 2015;12(5):503–10.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lantos JD, Wendler D, Septimus E, Wahba S, Madigan R, Bliss G. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):485–93.CrossRef Lantos JD, Wendler D, Septimus E, Wahba S, Madigan R, Bliss G. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):485–93.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Wendler D, Do U. S. Regulations allow more than minor increase over minimal risk pediatric research? Should they? IRB. 2013;35(6):1–8.PubMedPubMedCentral Wendler D, Do U. S. Regulations allow more than minor increase over minimal risk pediatric research? Should they? IRB. 2013;35(6):1–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Kipnis K. Seven vulnerabilities in the pediatric research subject. Theor Med Bioeth. 2003;24:107–20.CrossRef Kipnis K. Seven vulnerabilities in the pediatric research subject. Theor Med Bioeth. 2003;24:107–20.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81(3):4–13. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81(3):4–13.
25.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine. The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary. Olsen L, Aisner D, McGinnis JM. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2007. Institute of Medicine. The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary. Olsen L, Aisner D, McGinnis JM. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2007.
26.
go back to reference Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet. 2005;365:82–93.CrossRef Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet. 2005;365:82–93.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:637–44.CrossRef Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:637–44.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Ali J, Andrews JE Jr, Somkin CP, Rabinovich CE. Harms, benefits, and the nature of interventions in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:467–75.CrossRef Ali J, Andrews JE Jr, Somkin CP, Rabinovich CE. Harms, benefits, and the nature of interventions in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:467–75.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Faden R, Kass N, Whicher D, et al. Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Med Care. 2013;51:S53–7.CrossRef Faden R, Kass N, Whicher D, et al. Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Med Care. 2013;51:S53–7.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Kass NE, Faden RR, Goodman SN, et al. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hast Cent Rep. 2013;43:S4–S15.CrossRef Kass NE, Faden RR, Goodman SN, et al. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hast Cent Rep. 2013;43:S4–S15.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Jukema JW, Brouwer JR, Lüscher TF, Engberts DP, Quax PHA. Research ethics needs fine tuning, not rigidity: how to promote evidence in neglected patient populations by rethinking informed consent. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(40):2681–5.CrossRef Jukema JW, Brouwer JR, Lüscher TF, Engberts DP, Quax PHA. Research ethics needs fine tuning, not rigidity: how to promote evidence in neglected patient populations by rethinking informed consent. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(40):2681–5.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Kotz D, Viechtbauer W, Spigt M, Crutzen R. Details about informed consent procedures of randomized controlled trials should be reported transparently. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;109:133–5.CrossRef Kotz D, Viechtbauer W, Spigt M, Crutzen R. Details about informed consent procedures of randomized controlled trials should be reported transparently. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;109:133–5.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Fernandes N, Bryant D, Griffith L, et al. Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2014;186:E596–609.CrossRef Fernandes N, Bryant D, Griffith L, et al. Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2014;186:E596–609.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Anderson ML, Califf RM, Sugarman J. Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems. Clin Trials. 2015;12:276–86.CrossRef Anderson ML, Califf RM, Sugarman J. Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems. Clin Trials. 2015;12:276–86.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference O’Rourke PP, Carrithers J, Patrick-Lake B, Rice TW, Corsmo J, Hart R, et al. Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:449–56.CrossRef O’Rourke PP, Carrithers J, Patrick-Lake B, Rice TW, Corsmo J, Hart R, et al. Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:449–56.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, Kass NE. Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:766–8.CrossRef Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, Kass NE. Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:766–8.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Joffe S, Wertheimer A. Determining minimal risk for comparative effectiveness research. IRB. 2014;36:16–8.PubMed Joffe S, Wertheimer A. Determining minimal risk for comparative effectiveness research. IRB. 2014;36:16–8.PubMed
38.
go back to reference Taljaard M, Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, Ali A, Brehaut JC, Campbell MK, et al. Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic randomized clinical trials in healthcare: a mixed methods research protocol. Trials. 2018;19(1):525.CrossRef Taljaard M, Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, Ali A, Brehaut JC, Campbell MK, et al. Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic randomized clinical trials in healthcare: a mixed methods research protocol. Trials. 2018;19(1):525.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Johnson KE, Tachibana C, Coronado GD, Dember LM, Glasgow RE, Huang SS, Martin PJ, et al. A guide to research partnerships for pragmatic clinical trials. BMJ. 2014;349:g6826.CrossRef Johnson KE, Tachibana C, Coronado GD, Dember LM, Glasgow RE, Huang SS, Martin PJ, et al. A guide to research partnerships for pragmatic clinical trials. BMJ. 2014;349:g6826.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Larson EB, Tachibana C, Thompson E, Coronado GD, DeBar L, Dember LM, et al. Trials without tribulations: minimizing the burden of pragmatic research on healthcare systems. Healthc (Amst). 2016;4(3):138–41.CrossRef Larson EB, Tachibana C, Thompson E, Coronado GD, DeBar L, Dember LM, et al. Trials without tribulations: minimizing the burden of pragmatic research on healthcare systems. Healthc (Amst). 2016;4(3):138–41.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Platt R, Kass NE, McGraw D. Ethics, regulation, and comparative effectiveness research: time for a change. JAMA. 2014;311:1497–8.CrossRef Platt R, Kass NE, McGraw D. Ethics, regulation, and comparative effectiveness research: time for a change. JAMA. 2014;311:1497–8.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Rid A. How should we regulate risk in biomedical research? An ethical analysis of recent policy proposals and initiatives. Health Policy. 2014;117:409–20.CrossRef Rid A. How should we regulate risk in biomedical research? An ethical analysis of recent policy proposals and initiatives. Health Policy. 2014;117:409–20.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Sacks CA, Warren CE. Foreseeable risks? Informed consent for studies within the standard of care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:306–7.CrossRef Sacks CA, Warren CE. Foreseeable risks? Informed consent for studies within the standard of care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:306–7.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Vist GE, Hagen KB, Devereaux PJ, Bryant D, Kristoffersen DT, Oxman AD. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomised controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007:18(2):MR000009. Vist GE, Hagen KB, Devereaux PJ, Bryant D, Kristoffersen DT, Oxman AD. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomised controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007:18(2):MR000009.
45.
go back to reference Finkelstein JA, Brickman AL, Capron A, Ford DE, Gombosev A, Greene S, et al. Oversight on the borderline: quality improvement and pragmatic research. Clin Trials. 2015;12:457–66.CrossRef Finkelstein JA, Brickman AL, Capron A, Ford DE, Gombosev A, Greene S, et al. Oversight on the borderline: quality improvement and pragmatic research. Clin Trials. 2015;12:457–66.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Kim SY, Miller FG. Informed consent for pragmatic trials—the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:769–72.CrossRef Kim SY, Miller FG. Informed consent for pragmatic trials—the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:769–72.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Whicher DM, Miller JE, Dunham KM, Joffe S. Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:442–8.CrossRef Whicher DM, Miller JE, Dunham KM, Joffe S. Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:442–8.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference McKinney RE Jr, Beskow LM, Ford DE, et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials. 2015;12:494–502.CrossRef McKinney RE Jr, Beskow LM, Ford DE, et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials. 2015;12:494–502.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference McGraw D, Greene SM, Miner CS, Staman KL, Welch MJ, Rubel A. Privacy and confidentiality in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:520–9.CrossRef McGraw D, Greene SM, Miner CS, Staman KL, Welch MJ, Rubel A. Privacy and confidentiality in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:520–9.CrossRef
50.
go back to reference Mahajan R, Gupta K. Adaptive design clinical trials: methodology, challenges and prospect. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(4):201–17.CrossRef Mahajan R, Gupta K. Adaptive design clinical trials: methodology, challenges and prospect. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(4):201–17.CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Andrade SE, Gurwitz JH, Davis RL, Chan KA, Finkelstein JA, Fortman K, et al. Prescription drug use in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(2):398–407.CrossRef Andrade SE, Gurwitz JH, Davis RL, Chan KA, Finkelstein JA, Fortman K, et al. Prescription drug use in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(2):398–407.CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Werler MM, Mitchell AA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Honein MA. Use of over-the-counter medications during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:771–7.CrossRef Werler MM, Mitchell AA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Honein MA. Use of over-the-counter medications during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:771–7.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Tsui B, Dennehy CE, Tsourounis C. A survey of dietary supplement use during pregnancy at an academic medical center. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(2):433–7.CrossRef Tsui B, Dennehy CE, Tsourounis C. A survey of dietary supplement use during pregnancy at an academic medical center. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(2):433–7.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Cragan JD, Friedman JM, Holmes LB, Uhl K, Green NS, Riley L. Ensuring the safe and effective use of medications during pregnancy: planning and prevention through preconception care. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(5 Suppl):S129–35.CrossRef Cragan JD, Friedman JM, Holmes LB, Uhl K, Green NS, Riley L. Ensuring the safe and effective use of medications during pregnancy: planning and prevention through preconception care. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(5 Suppl):S129–35.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The ethical justification for inclusion of neonates in pragmatic randomized clinical trials for emergency newborn care
Author
Dan Kabonge Kaye
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Pediatrics / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2431
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1600-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Pediatrics 1/2019 Go to the issue