Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:54:28.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethical Considerations for the Conduct of Antidementia Trials in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

John D. Fisk
John D. Fisk*
Affiliation:
The Departments of Psychiatry, Medicine and Psychology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
*
A.J. Lane Memorial Building, 5909 Veteran's Memorial Lane, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 2E2, Canada.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Clinical trials in persons with dementia bring into focus the ethical dilemmas frequently confronting the clinician-scientist. Despite the existence of various ethical guidelines, most with common underlying principles, few are specific to dementia. A particular difficulty is finding a balance between respect for the autonomy of the individual and the protection of vulnerable persons, while at the same time defining an acceptable risk/benefit ratio for the study. The availability of symptomatic treatments for Alzheimer's disease also now make it difficult to argue that withholding treatment from those in the placebo arm of a clinical trial fulfills one's duty to provide best care. Those conducting clinical trials must be knowledgeable about existing legislation and ethical guidelines in order to justify to themselves and others, the design of clinical trials and their risks. They must be prepared to educate patients and family members about dementia and research, determine each potential subject's competence to consent, and ensure that decisions about participation are in accordance with the best interests of the subject. Ethical conduct of clinical trials of new antidementia therapies will require that everyone involved understands the values and beliefs that guide their decision-making and the potentially conflicting roles facing the clinician-scientist.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:

Les essais cliniques chez les sujets déments illustrent les dilemmes éthiques auxquels le clinicien-chercheur est fréquemment confronté. Malgré l'existence de différentes lignes directrices en éthique, la plupart ayant des principes sous-jacents communs, peu sont spécifiques de la démence. Il est particulièrement difficile d'établir un équilibre entre le respect de l'autonomie de l'individu et la protection des personnes vulnérables tout en définissant un taux de risques/bénéfices acceptable pour l'étude. Il est devenu difficile de soutenir que le fait de ne pas traiter les sujets du groupe placebo est compatible avec le devoir de leur procurer les meilleurs soins possibles vu la disponibilité de traitements symptomatiques pour la maladie d'Alzheimer. Ceux qui effectuent des essais cliniques doivent connaître la législation et les lignes directrices éthiques afin de se justifier et de justifier vis-à-vis des autres le plan des essais cliniques et les risques qui y sont associés. Ils doivent être prêts à informer les patients et les membres de leur famille sur la démence et la recherche, à déterminer la compétence de chaque sujet potentiel à donner son consentement et à assurer que les décisions au sujet de la participation sont dans le meilleur intérêt du sujet. Il faudra que toutes les personnes impliquées comprennent les valeurs et les croyances qui guident la prise de décision et les rôles conflictuels potentiels auxquels fait face le clinicien-chercheur pour un déroulement éthique des essais cliniques sur les nouveaux médicaments antidémence.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue S1 , March 2007 , pp. S32 - S36
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2007

References

1. Miller, FG, Brody, H. What makes placebo-controlled trials unethical? Am J Bioethics. 2002; 2: 3–9.Google Scholar
2. Lemmens, T, Miller, PB. Avoiding a Jekyll-and-Hyde approach to the ethics of clinical research and practice. Am J Bioethics. 2002; 2: 14–7.Google Scholar
3. World Medical Association, World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Adopted 1964, last amended 2002, [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htmGoogle Scholar
4. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2002). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002.htmGoogle Scholar
5. Graham, C, Holmes, C, Lindesay, J. Clinical involvement in antidementia drug trials - why bother? Int J Geriatric Psychiatry. 1999; 14: 258–60.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Lader, EW, Cannon, CP, Ohman, EM, Newby, LK, Sulmasy, DP, Barst, R, et al. The clinician as investigator: participating in clinical trials in the practice setting. Circulation. 2004; 109: 2672–9.Google Scholar
7. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research, The Belmont Report, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, 1979, [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://www.nihtraining.com/ohsrsite/guidelines/belmont.htmlGoogle Scholar
8. Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Oviedo, 4.IV.1997. [cited April 13, 2006], Available from: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htmGoogle Scholar
9. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998 (with 2000, 2002 updates), [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/policystatement.cfmGoogle Scholar
10. International Conference on Harmonization of Technical requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. (2004). Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guidelines E6. [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://www.ich.org/cache/compo/276-254-1.htmlGoogle Scholar
11. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46 Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects, Section 46.102.i, [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htmGoogle Scholar
12. Steinbrook, R. Improving protection for research subjects. N Eng J Med. 2002; 346: 1425–30.Google Scholar
13. Office of Human Subjects Research, Information Sheet 7, National Institutes of Health, [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/info/sheet3.htmlGoogle Scholar
14. Weijer, C. The ethical analysis of risk. J Law Med Ethics 2000; 28: 344–61.Google Scholar
15. High, DM, Whitehouse, PJ, Post, SG, Berg, L. Guidelines for addressing ethical and legal issues in Alzheimer disease research: a position paper. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1994; 8: 66–74.Google Scholar
16. Keyserlingk, EW, Glass, K, Kogan, S, Gauthier, S. Proposed guidelines for the participation of persons with dementia as research subjects. Perspect Biol Med 1995; 38: 319–62.Google Scholar
17. Birks, J. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD005593. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005593.Google Scholar
18. Craig, D, Birks, J. Rivastigmine for vascular cognitive impairment. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004744. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004744.pub2.Google Scholar
19. Malouf, R, Birks, J. Donepezil for vascular cognitive impairment. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004395. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004395.pub2.Google Scholar
20. Maidment, I, Fox, C, Boustani, M. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Parkinson’s disease dementia. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004747. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004747.pub2.Google Scholar
21. Wild, R, Pettit, T, Burns, A. Cholinesterase inhibitors for dementia with Lewy bodies. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003672. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003672.Google Scholar
22. Birks, J, Harvey, RJ. Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD001190. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001190.pub2.Google Scholar
23. Greenberg, SM, Bacskai, BJ, Hyman, BT. Alzheimer disease’s double-edged vaccine. Nature Med. 2003; 9: 389–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Karlawish, JHT, Casarett, DJ, James, BD. Alzheimer’s disease patients’ and caregivers’ capacity, competency, and reasons to enroll in an early-phase Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002; 50: 2019–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Petersen, RC, Stevens, JC, Ganguli, M, Tangalos, EG, Cummigs, JL, DeKosky ST. Practice parameter: Early detection of dementia: mild cognitive impairment (an evidence-based review). Neurology. 2001; 56: 1133–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Etchells, E, Darzins, P, Silberfeld, M4, Singer, PA, McKenny, J, Naglie, G, et al. Assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 1999; 14: 27–34.Google Scholar
27. Karlawish, JHT, Casarett, DJ, James, BD, Xie, SX, Kim, SYH. The ability of persons with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) to make a decision about taking an AD treatment. Neurology. 2005; 64: 1514–9.Google Scholar
28. Kim, SYH, Caine, ED. Utility and limits of the Mini Mental State Examination in evaluating consent capacity in Alzheimer’s disease. Psychiatr Serv. 2002; 53: 1322–4.Google Scholar
29. McQuillan, MP, Tariot, P. Who can say yes (or no) to a physician - and how does the physician know they can? Neurology. 2005; 64: 1494–5.Google Scholar
30. Marson, DC. Loss of competency in Alzheimer’s disease: conceptual and psychometric approaches. Int J Law Ethics. 2001; 24: 267–83.Google Scholar
31. Moye, J, Karel, MJ, Azar, AR, Gurrera, RJ. Capacity to consent to treatment: Empirical comparison of the instruments in older adults with and without dementia. Gerontologist. 2004; 44: 166–75.Google Scholar
32. Marson, DC, McInturff, B, Hawkins, L, Bartolucci, A, Harrell, LE. Consistency of physician judgements of capacity to consent in Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997; 45: 453–7.Google Scholar
33. Kim, SY, Caine, ED, Currier, GW, Leibovici, A, Ryan, JM. Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer’s disease in providing informed consent for participation in research. Am J Psychiatry. 2001; 158: 712–7.Google Scholar
34. High, DM. Research with Alzheimer’s disease subjects: informed consent and proxy decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992; 40: 950–7.Google Scholar
35. Fisk, JD, Sadovnick, AD, Cohen, CA, Gauthier, S, Dossetor, J, Eberhart, A, et al. Ethical guidelines of the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Can J Neurol Sci. 1998; 25: 242–8.Google Scholar
36. Karlawish, JHT. Research involving cognitively impaired adults. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348: 1389–92.Google Scholar
37. Wendler, D, Prasad, K. Core safe guards for clinical research with adults who are unable to consent. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135: 514–23.Google Scholar
38. Alzheimer Society of Canada. Ethical Guidelines, 2003. [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://www.alzheimer.ca/english/care/ethics-intro.htmGoogle Scholar
39. The Ethics and Humanities Subcommittees of the American Academy of Neurology. Ethical issues in clinical research in neurology: advancing knowledge and protecting human research subjects. Neurology. 1998; 50: 592–5.Google Scholar
40. Sachs, GA, Stocking, CB, Stern, R, Cox, DM, Hougham, G, Sachs, RS. Ethical aspects of dementia research: informed consent and proxy consent. Clin Res. 1994; 42: 403–12.Google Scholar
41. Candilis, PJ, Wesley, RW, Wichman, A. A survey of researchers using a consent policy for cognitively impaired human research subjects. IRB. 1993; 15: 1–4.Google Scholar
42. Werner, P. Correlates of family caregivers knowledge about Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2001; 16: 32–8.Google Scholar
43. Karlawish, JH, Casarett, D, Klocinski, J, Sankar, P. How do AD patients and their caregivers decide whether to enroll in a clinical trial? Neurology. 2001; 56: 789–92.Google Scholar
44. Sugarman, J, Cain, C, Wallace, R, Welsh-Bohmer, KA. How proxies make decisions about research for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001; 49: 1110–9.Google Scholar
45. Karlawish, JH, Klocinski, JL, Merz, J, Clark, CM, Asch, DA. Caregivers’ preferences for the treatment of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 2000; 55: 1008–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Huston, P, Peterson, R. Withholding proven treatment in clinical research. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 912–4.Google Scholar
47. Freedman, B, Glass, K, Weijer, C. Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research. II: ethical, legal, and regulatory myths. J Law Med Ethics. 1996; 24: 252–9.Google Scholar
48. Shapiro, E, Shapiro, A. The powerful placebo: from ancient priest to modern physician. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
49. Guess, HA, Kleinman, A, Kusek, JW, Engel, LW, editors. The science of the placebo. London: BMJ Books; 2002.Google Scholar
50. International Conference on Harmonization of Technical requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. (2000) Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials E10. [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://www.ich.org/cache/compo/276-254-1.htmlGoogle Scholar
51. National Placebo Initiative, Final Report of the National Placebo Working Committee on the Appropriate use of Placebos in Clinical Trials in Canada, July 2004, [cited April 13, 2006]. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/25139.htmlGoogle Scholar
52. Chen, DT, Miller, FG, Rosenstein, DL. Clinical research and the physician-patient relationship. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 669–72.Google Scholar
53. Morin, K, Rakatansky, H, Riddick, FA. Managing conflict of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA. 2002; 287: 78–84.Google Scholar
54. Kim, SYH, Millard, RW, Nisbet, P, Cox, C, Caine, ED. Potential research participants’ views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interest. J Med Ethics. 2004; 30:73–9.Google Scholar