Grankvist Hannah, Kimmelman Jonathan
Department of Thematic Studies - Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
Studies for Translation, Research Ethics, and Medicine (STREAM), Biomedical Ethics Unit/Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel St., Montreal, QC, H3A 1X1, Canada.
Med Health Care Philos. 2016 Jun;19(2):191-8. doi: 10.1007/s11019-016-9685-6.
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.
临床研究的启动意味着对特定临床转化路径的投入大幅增加;它也使人类受试者面临理解不足的干预措施。尽管风险如此之高,但在早期试验的科学和伦理评估方面,几乎没有什么能为决策者提供指导。在本文中,我们回顾了有关人类保护、药物监管以及围绕试验启动的研究设计的政策和共识声明,并得出结论,决策在很大程度上由研究团队和申办者自行决定。然后,我们回顾了目前对研究团队如何行使这种酌处权的理解,并最后提出了一个研究议程,以描述研究者、申办者和审评者在早期研究中进行决策的方式。