University College London, UK.
Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(9):3-14. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.813597.
Clinical research under the usual regulatory constraints may be difficult or even impossible in a public health emergency. Regulators must seek to strike a good balance in granting as wide therapeutic access to new drugs as possible at the same time as gathering sound evidence of safety and effectiveness. To inform current policy, I reexamine the philosophical rationale for restricting new medicines to clinical trials, at any stage and for any population of patients (which resides in the precautionary principle), to show that its objective to protect public health, now or in the future, could soon be defeated in a pandemic. Providing wider therapeutic access and coordinating observations and natural experiments, including service delivery by cluster (wedged cluster trials), may provide such a balance. However, there are important questions of fairness to resolve before any such research can proceed.
在公共卫生紧急情况下,通常受到监管限制的临床研究可能会变得困难甚至不可能。监管机构必须寻求在尽可能广泛地为新药物提供治疗的同时,同时收集安全性和有效性的可靠证据,以取得良好的平衡。为了为当前的政策提供信息,我重新审视了将新药限制在临床试验中的哲学依据,无论是在任何阶段还是针对任何患者群体(这取决于预防原则),以表明其旨在保护现在或将来的公共卫生的目标可能很快在大流行中被击败。提供更广泛的治疗途径并协调观察和自然实验,包括通过集群(楔形集群试验)提供服务,可能会取得这种平衡。然而,在进行任何此类研究之前,还有一些公平性问题需要解决。