Friday, August 28, 2015
On July 10, 2015, the US House of Representatives passed H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act, with a vote of 344-77. The passage of the bill, which many have hailed as a noteworthy example of bipartisan collaboration, is the result of more than a year of congressional hearings, roundtable discussions, whitepapers, and political debate. First introduced in April 2014 by Fred Upton (R-MI), chairman of the US House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO), the 21st Century Cures initiative seeks to “accelerate the pace of cures in America.”
The legislative phase of the 21st Century Cures initiative began in January 2015, with the release of the first discussion draft of the bill. This version proposed major changes to the drug and device development process and touched on issues related to human subjects protections, the sharing of clinical trial data, expanded access, adaptive clinical trial designs, orphan drugs, and much more. The reaction to the discussion draft was varied, with supporters hailing the collaborative and transparent nature of the bill’s development, and critics voicing concerns over provisions that they believed would negatively affect patient safety.
Over the next several months, additional discussion drafts were released and the 21st Century Cures Act was further refined, with later versions representing “a less aggressive streamlining of the drug approval process.” Nonetheless, the version of the 21st Century Cures Act that was passed by the House on July 10 proposes significant changes and has prompted debate among scientists, academics, industry representatives, patient advocacy groups, and regulators.
One element of the 21st Century Cures Act that has been met with a mixed reception are provisions that would broaden the evidence base that can be used to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of drugs and devices. Some have praised the changes for their ability to expedite the drug and device approval process, while others have expressed concern that the proposed changes will lower safety standards. In an opinion piece for The New England Journal of Medicine, Jerry Avorn, MD, and Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, raised concerns that the bill would take the United States back in time in terms of drug and device approval. They write, “Embedded in the language of the 21st Century Cures Act are some good ideas that could streamline the development and evaluation of new drugs and devices; its call for increased NIH funding may prove to be its most useful component. But political forces have also introduced other provisions that could lead to the approval of drugs and devices that are less safe or effective than existing criteria would permit.”
Tucked within the lengthy 21st Century Cures Act are a number of provisions that apply directly to the clinical trials process and human subjects protections. Early versions of the draft legislation called on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to make modifications to the existing regulations for the protection of human subjects so as “to ensure that human subject research that is subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or to section 351 of this Act, and is therefore subject to parts 50, 56, 312, and 812 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations), is not subject to subpart A of part 46 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations).” However, in the version that was ultimately approved by the House, that language, which raised concerns among some in the research protections community, was removed.
The legislation now focuses more broadly on directing the Secretary of DHHS to make modifications to existing regulations governing the protection of human subjects in order to: harmonize FDA and DHHS requirements to the extent possible; modernize the provisions for multi-site and collaborative research projects; “reduce regulatory duplication and unnecessary delays;” and “incorporate local considerations, community values, and mechanisms to protect vulnerable populations.” The legislation also calls on the Secretary of DHHS to ensure that federally funded research can use joint or shared review and to provide further guidance on such arrangements. The use of central IRBs for the review of multi-site research is further supported later in the bill by a provision that requires Section 520 of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act be amended to remove the term “local.” This change will allow for centralized review of FDA-regulated studies involving a device.
Another noteworthy provision would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in order to allow for waivers of informed consent for drug and device research in situations where “the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.” This change would eliminate one of the significant differences between the FDA and DHHS regulations governing the protection of human subjects.
The 21st Century Cures Act also proposes a number of changes that would allow for easier access to health data for use in research. Specifically, the 21st Century Cures Act calls for amendments to the HIPAA Privacy Rule “to allow: (1) use of protected information for research purposes to be treated as use for health care operations, (2) remote access to information by researchers, and (3) individuals to authorize future use of their information for research.” In addition to the specific provisions outlined above, the bill also addresses the need to include patient perspectives in the drug development process, the promotion of pediatric research, the inclusion of under-represented communities in clinical trials, and the issue of reducing administrative burden for researchers.
With the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act by the House, attention has turned to the Senate, which is working on a parallel bill under the leadership of Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP); and Patty Murray (D-WA), ranking minority member of HELP. Over the past several months, HELP has held a number of congressional hearings and is gathering information as they work to develop their own legislation aimed at fostering biomedical innovation. Most recently, Senator Alexander informed a National Academies panel charged with “develop[ing] a new framework for Federal regulation of research universities in the 21st century” that he welcomes their input and encourages the group to provide preliminary recommendations by the end of the summer, so that their work can be incorporated into the Senate’s efforts.
Earlier this year, Upton and DeGette, who moved the 21st Century Cures Act quickly through the House, shared that they hope to have a final bill signed into law by year’s end. Ultimately, however, the feasibility of that goal is dependent on the Senate, which appears to be moving at a slower pace than the House did.
Portions of this post were adapted from an article titled 21st Century Cures Looks to Modernize Clinical Trials which appeared in the May 2015 edition of the PRIM&R Member Newsletter. The PRIM&R Member Newsletter is distributed once a month to PRIM&R members. To learn more about the PRIM&R Member Newsletter, as well as other member benefits, please visit our website.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
If you were to reflect on important events that occurred in 1966, a legal decision handed down that year had such impact as to influence the conduct of our society every day thereafter. History buffs may think I’m referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona which protected the rights of the accused, and introduced the Miranda warning. While this was undeniably monumental and provided necessary protections within the criminal justice system, it was not the only important safeguard measure enacted that year. For animals, the critically significant Public Law 89-544 was signed into existence on August 24, 1966. It is more familiar to us as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
This original AWA responded to societal concerns about the treatment of animals, specifically defining how dogs, cats, and certain other animals would be procured, transported, and used for research, among other things. To this day, the AWA is the only federal law describing the requirements for how animals are to be treated in the United States of America; its enforcement falls to the United States Department of Agriculture. Given its critical importance in providing direction and protection for animals, it is no surprise that the AWA has changed over time to remain current with societal standards and to address new concerns as they arise.
The AWA has been amended seven times since 1966, with each change providing greater clarity of expectations and expansion of coverage. In 1985, the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act amendment (also called the Food Security Act) provided additional direction on standards for sanitation, housing, and ventilation for lab animals. Exercise requirements for dogs and the promotion of psychological well-being in nonhuman primates were other key changes. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) was introduced and described, and so many things considered standard practices of IACUCs today—such as the minimization of pain and distress, and the consideration of alternatives to painful procedures—were written into law in this amendment.
The AWA has been criticized by some who focus on its limitations. For instance, it does not cover birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus—animals common to research. However, many other policies and guidance documents provide standards and expectations to supplement those found in the AWA and cover additional species. These include the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching, and the U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training.
Another criticism is that the AWA “only” describes the minimum expected standards for facilities, husbandry, transport, and veterinary care. One can argue, convincingly, that laws are not the sole motivation that drives animal care and use professionals to make appropriate decisions about animal care and well-being. The AWA ensures action will be taken against those who do not meet minimum standards. Yet, many individuals and institutions exceed the Act’s expectations each day in their conduct and care. They strive to surpass the idea of ‘minimally acceptable’ and exemplify what is infinitely possible with continued refinement and dedication to best practices in every aspect of their work with animals. Their choices have nothing to do with legality and everything to do with an enduring commitment to animal welfare.
When we look back years from now, we’ll know the outcomes of current discussions related to the Animal Welfare Act. Rather than exercise our right to remain silent, the AWA reminds us of our duty to be vocal about how we can best provide high quality care to our animals while furthering improvements in human and animal health. The two are not mutually exclusive. New standards will be based on the changing values of society, and as knowledgeable members of that group, we must listen closely and contribute to the conversation to keep the Animal Welfare Act robust and applicable for decades to come.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
On July 22, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was seeking comment on a framework for a five-year, NIH-wide Strategic Plan. The plan, which will ultimately be submitted to Congress and is being generated with input from senior leadership and staff across NIH, is intended to “outline a set of unifying principles to guide NIH in pursuit of its mission” and “highlight major trans-NIH themes” in order to help advance the biomedical research enterprise.
In the framework, NIH identifies three areas of opportunity that apply across biomedicine: (1) the promotion of fundamental science, (2) the improvement of health promotion and disease prevention, and (3) the advancement of treatment and cures. In addition to the crosscutting areas of research, NIH identifies two unifying principles: (1) set NIH priorities, and (2) enhance stewardship. Notably absent from the areas of opportunity and unifying principles identified is an explicit discussion of NIH’s role in promoting the ethical conduct of research.
Recently, PRIM&R’s Public Policy Committee, which is composed of experts from a range of disciplines and institutional settings, responded to NIH’s request with a brief letter. In this response, PRIM&R acknowledges the role that NIH has played in promoting human subjects protections, the ethical conduct of science, and scientific integrity, and asks the Institutes to build on that history and ensure that the centrality of ethics in the research enterprise is reflected in its forthcoming strategic plan.
Specifically, PRIM&R encourages NIH to add the following as a unifying principle in its strategic plan:
Integrate Ethics—NIH integrates ethics, including principles for the ethical conduct of science, robust human and animal subject protections, and scientific integrity, by ensuring that ethics is an integral component of scientific design, the training of scientists, grant and contract review, the sharing, dissemination, and assimilation of research results, and public education.
PRIM&R goes on to note that the success of NIH’s crosscutting objectives “rests on a scientific enterprise that is and appears to be based on ethical principles, including transparency and independence from financial and other outside interests” and that “explicit inclusion of ethics as a unifying principle of the framework will serve as a strong affirmation to the community of scientists that attending to research ethics is not a wasteful ‘burden’ but a means to better and more sustainable research.”
Take a moment to read PRIM&R’s complete response to NIH and to share your thoughts about PRIM&R’s comments or the framework for the NIH-wide Strategic Plan in the comments below.
Friday, August 21, 2015
New techniques and technologies are changing the way we think about research. This week’s Research Ethics Roundup explores some of those developments, including the growing use of randomized trials to evaluate social programs and continued efforts to create alternatives to animal models.
A Scientific Look at Bad Science: In this piece for The Atlantic, Bourree Lam reviews recent literature in an effort to answer the question: “are retractions increasing because errors and other misdeeds are becoming more common, or because research is now scrutinized more closely?”
Can We Eliminate Animals from Medical Research?: Teal Burrell reports on efforts to develop alternatives to animal models, including the work of Donald Ingber, MD, PhD, who developed a lung-on-a-chip, in this piece for NOVA Next.
Can Randomized Trials Eliminate Global Poverty? : Economists are increasingly turning to randomized trials in order to generate empirical data on the effectiveness of social programs. In this article for Nature, Jeff Tollefson explores this trend, as well as its history and potential future growth.
How to Know Whether to Believe a Health Study: In this piece for The New York Times, Austin Frakt explains some common elements of clinical trial design in an effort to increase understanding and help the public become “savvy consumer[s] of research.”
Registered Clinical Trials Make Positive Findings Vanish: A new study published in PLoS One suggests that the number of studies reporting positive trial results has declined significantly since 2000, when requirements for the registration of clinical trials were enacted. Chris Woolston provides insight into the study, as well as the public reaction, in this article for Nature.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
To fulfill ethical requirements, each year, millions of people (Krall, 2009) engage in an informed consent discussion before joining clinical trials, weighing both possible risks and benefits of the trial participation when making their choice to take part in the proposed study.
However, studies suggest many research participants do not understand these risks and benefits (Guarino et al., 2006; Bergenmar et al., 2008; Jefford et al., 2011; Koh, 2012; Montalvo & Larson, 2014) even after they have agreed to join a research study.
A poor understanding of risks may lead to future regret concerning joining the trial, and may cause participants to leave the trial before it ends. This may negatively affect all of the study findings (Stryker et al., 2006; Meneguin & Cesar, 2012). Worst of all, this poor communication of risk information may result in physical or psychological harm to research participants (Shalala, 2000; Buchanan, 2013).
To solve this problem, we need to better understand what happens during the informed consent process. Nurses, as a part of a research team, play an increasingly active role in obtaining informed consent from potential participants (Banner & Zimmer, 2012; Tomlin et al., 2014; Cresswell & Gilmour, 2014), while providing detailed explanations of the study protocols and finding answers to participants’ questions.
Like others, I am concerned about these issues, so I am studying the perceptions and experience of research nurses regarding the communication of risks and benefits. Nurses’ voices are markedly under-represented in research literature discussing communication of risk information to the research participant. My study aims to address this gap while also developing a better understanding of how to improve the informed consent process. I am looking for nurses’ opinions and experiences to address some shortcomings in the informed consent process.
If you currently are, or have ever been, a research nurse on a clinical trial research team and have ever participated in obtaining informed consent, I invite you to complete my survey of Nurses’ Opinions Regarding the Informed Consent Process in Research. Your anonymous responses will contribute to a greater understanding of the process, which can lead to recommendations for needed improvements. You can take the survey by clicking on the link below.
Please forward this link to research nurses you know, even if you are not a nurse.
I plan to share the findings on this blog and look forward to a rich discussion of ways to improve the informed consent process.
If you have questions or comments, please contact me at Nusbaum.firstname.lastname@example.org.