Faculty Bibliography

The parents of Charlie Gard, who was born August 4, 2016, with an exceedingly rare and incurable disease called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, fought a prolonged and heated legal battle to allow him access to experimental treatment that they hoped would prolong his life and to prevent his doctors from withdrawing life-sustaining care. Charlie's clinicians at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London believed that the brain damage Charlie had suffered as a result of frequent epileptic seizures, along with many other severe disabilities, would render any innovative therapy futile, and they disagreed with his parents' wishes to use an experimental therapy. They felt it in Charlie's best interest that he be allowed to die. A battle ensued among Charlie's parents, his doctors, and a guardian who had been appointed to represent him that drew the attention of politicians and prominent persons from all over the world. The case was much in the news over the past year, but it has also been frequently misunderstood.

Despite the critical importance of patient-physician trust, it may be compromised among vulnerable patients, such as (1) incarcerated patients and (2) those patients who have been victims of trauma. The purpose of this study was to examine patient-physician trust among forensic and civilian psychiatric inpatient populations and to explore whether it varied based on a patient's history of incarceration and/or victimization. A trust survey (WFPTS) and a trauma instrument (LEC-5) were administered to 93 patients hospitalized on forensic and civilian psychiatric hospital units in a large, urban public hospital. Results showed no difference in patient-physician trust between incarcerated and civilian patients. Similarly, there was no effect of a history of physical assault or sexual assault on ratings of patient-physician trust. However, the hospitalized civilian and forensic patients who reported being the victim of weapons assault had significantly lower patient-physician trust scores than their counterparts.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the characteristics of "expanded access" and "compassionate use" programs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the percentage of drugs provided through these programs that ultimately received FDA marketing approval. RESULTS: We identified 398 expanded access and compassionate use programs (hereafter referred to as expanded access programs) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Industry funded 61% (n = 241) of programs individually or collaboratively, while NIH and the US Federal Government rarely funded programs (3% [n = 11] and 2% [n = 6], respectively). Most programs provided access to drugs (71% [n = 282]), 11% to biologics (n = 43), and 10% to medical devices (n = 40). These programs covered 460 unique conditions, the most common being HIV (n = 26), leukemia (22), and multiple myeloma (n = 14). Only 2% of programs reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Most programs (82%) were open to enrolling adults and seniors (n = 326). These programs provided access to 210 unique experimental drugs, of which 76% have received FDA approval.

BACKGROUND:Patients who are seriously ill and have run out of available treatment options may seek access to investigational agents that have not yet been fully vetted by regulatory agencies for safety and efficacy and approved for use in human subjects. Over time, a variety of terms have evolved internationally to denote mechanisms for providing access to such unapproved investigational agents. The lack of consistency in terminology used to describe this process is confusing at best and, at worst, possibly even detrimental to patients. METHODS:To highlight variation around the globe in terminology denoting pre-approval access to investigational agents, we conducted extensive Internet searches to locate specific legislation, guidance, or policy documents describing access mechanisms in numerous countries. We created a table of results intended to convey a sampling of international terminological diversity. RESULTS:The profusion of terms used internationally to indicate pre-approval access to investigational agents is evident. We recommend a shift toward the use of "pre-approval access" as an umbrella term encompassing all forms of access to unapproved agents. We also recommend use of the phrases "individual/named patient regulatory routes for pre-approval access" and "group/cohort regulatory routes for pre-approval access" to differentiate between pre-approval access programs designed for single patients, versus those designed for groups of patients. CONCLUSIONS:There is a pressing need to revisit and better align pre-approval access terminology at the international level. Adopting the umbrella term "pre-approval access" may be a useful strategy for initiating and promoting harmonization of terms to reduce potential confusion by patients and health care decision makers regarding experimental treatment options.

This article reflects on the relevance and applicability of the Belmont Report nearly four decades after its original publication. In an exploration of criticisms that have been raised in response to the report and of significant changes that have occurred within the context of biomedical research, five primary themes arise. These themes include the increasingly vague boundary between research and practice, unique harms to communities that are not addressed by the principle of respect for persons, and how growing complexity and commodification in research have shed light on the importance of transparency. The repercussions of Belmont's emphasis on the protection of vulnerable populations is also explored, as is the relationship between the report's ethical principles and their applications. It is concluded that while the Belmont Report was an impressive response to the ethical issues of its day, the field of research ethics involving human subjects may have outgrown it.