Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND: For men with significant genitourinary injury, penile transplantation is being considered as an option when reconstruction is not feasible or proves unacceptable to the injured patient. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted to assess the current state of penile reconstruction and transplantation options, as well as to evaluate scholarly research addressing the ethical dimensions of penile transplantation. RESULTS: The state of penile transplantation is elementary. If reconstruction is not a possibility, proceeding ethically with research on penile vascularized composite allotransplantation will require the articulation of guidelines. To date, very little has been published in the scholarly literature assessing the ethics of penile transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should be developed to address penile transplantation and must cover the donation of tissue, consent, subject selection, qualifications of the surgical team, and management of both failure and patient dissatisfaction. Unless guidelines are established and disseminated, penile transplants should not be undertaken. The preliminary recommendations suggested in this article may help to inform development of guidelines.

Policy makers, payers, and the general public are increasingly focused on health care quality improvement. Measuring quality requires robust data systems that collect data over time, can be integrated with other systems, and can be analyzed easily for trends. The goal of this project was to study effective tools and strategies in the design and use of clinical registries with the potential to facilitate quality improvement, value-based purchasing, and public reporting on the quality of care. The research team worked with an expert panel to define characteristics of effectiveness, and studied examples of effective registries in cancer, cardiovascular care, maternity, and joint replacement. The research team found that effective registries were successful in 1 or more of 6 key areas: data standardization, transparency, accuracy/completeness of data, participation by providers, financial sustainability, and/or providing feedback to providers. The findings from this work can assist registry designers, sponsors, and researchers in implementing strategies to increase the use of clinical registries to improve patient care and outcomes.

In the last half century, informed consent has become a central tenet of all research involving human subjects. However, even after the worldwide adoption of regulations aimed at ensuring the protection of subjects, some abuses continue. The installation of oversight bodies, such as institutional review boards, has prevented the bulk of deliberate mistreatment; however, unintentional coercion is still a problem. Informed consent is not limited to obtaining a signature on a consent form, but a process of decision making designed to protect the rights of patients and subjects. It is a constant, ongoing exchange of information between researcher and subject. Although research is invaluable to the advancement of medicine and transplantation, researchers have the responsibility to protect their subjects' rights and autonomy. This paper provides an overview of informed consent, principles behind the process, and implications of current regulations to assist readers in their endeavor for sound and ethical research.

It is essential that anyone involved in research involving human subjects be familiar with the purpose and role of institutional review boards. Institutional review boards are designed, first and foremost, to protect human research subjects by overseeing the implementation of federal regulations regarding protection of human subjects. The federal government requires institutional review board approval for any human subject research that receives federal funding, and many scholarly journals require proof of institutional review board approval of the research before publication. In this article, the answers to 10 frequently asked questions about the role of institutional review boards highlight the important contributions made by institutional review boards to the conduct of ethically sound research. The aim is to generate a working knowledge of the institutional review board's function that can be used by every researcher contemplating working with human research subjects. This is the first in a series of 3 articles examining common issues in research ethics.