Charles Weijer

We studied changes in eligibility criteria--the largest impediment to patient accrual--in two samples of clinical trials. Trials from the NSABP (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Program) and POG (Pediatric Oncology Group) were analyzed. After eliminating duplications, the criteria in each protocol were enumerated and classified according to a novel schema. NSABP trials contained significantly more criteria than POG trials, and added precision criteria (making study populations homogeneous) at a faster rate than POG studies. The difference between NSABP studies (explanatory trials) and POG studies (pragmatic trials) suggest that large numbers of eligibility criteria are not necessary for quality studies. We recommend that: (1) the inclusion/exclusion criteria distinction be abandoned; (2) eligibility criteria be explicitly justified; (3) the need for each criterion be assessed when new trials are planned; (4) criteria in phase III trials restricting patient accrual be minimized; and (5) further research be done to assess the impact of criteria on generalizability

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether eligibility criteria that exclude the elderly, persons with psychiatric disease, and persons with substance abuse problems from participation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are subjective and hence a source of variability in enrolment decisions and investigator uncertainty. DESIGN: Survey questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Cancer investigators from the United States and Canada. INTERVENTIONS: Investigators were presented with clinical vignettes from 3 patient categories--eligible, ineligible and uncertain--for each of 5 eligibility criteria--3 subjective and 2 objective--and were asked whether they would enrol the patient in a trial and how sure they were of this decision. Demographic characteristics of the investigators were also collected. OUTCOME MEASURES: The difference in enrolment decisions between subjective and objective criteria, and the difference in the certainty associated with these decisions. RESULTS: Of 365 questionnaires sent out, 224 usable ones were returned. Compared with the objective criteria, the subjective criteria were associated with more variable enrolment decisions (p = 0.07 for the "eligible" scenario and p = 0.0001 for the "ineligible" and "uncertain" scenarios), and investigators were less sure about the decisions they made (p = 0.0001 for all scenarios). Demographic characteristics of the investigators failed to explain the observed differences. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective eligibility criteria may interfere with the conduct and interpretation of RCTs and, therefore, their use ought to be justified explicitly in the study protocol. RCT designers, funding agencies and research ethics boards have an important role in reviewing eligibility criteria for their necessity

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine differences in nursing care received by patients with breast cancer enrolled in clinical trials and those not enrolled in clinical trials. DESIGN: Retrospective review of clinic charts. SETTING: Oncology outpatient department of a tertiary-care hospital. SAMPLE: 90 women with early stage breast cancer. The mean age of the women was 53 years. More than half of the women (51 of 90) were treated in a clinical trial. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all the nurse-patient clinic encounters for a six-month period from date of cancer diagnosis. The content of each encounter was coded using a modified version of the Nursing Action Classification System. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Nursing interventions (i.e., assessment, medical scheduling, psychosocial scheduling, reassurance, and teaching) and phone calls. FINDINGS: Women enrolled in clinical trials had more phone interactions with nursing staff (p = 0.003) and received teaching (p < 0.001) and reassurance (p = 0.005) from nursing staff more often than women not enrolled in clinical trials. Controlling for age and stage of disease, teaching (p < 0.001), and reassurance (p = 0.10) were the primary differences in nursing care between the patients enrolled in clinical trials and those not enrolled. CONCLUSION: Differences in nursing care received exist between patients with breast cancer enrolled in clinical trials and those not enrolled. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Both teaching and reassurance are important components of caring for patients with cancer and are associated with treatment compliance. If the results of this study are confirmed, measures must be employed to ensure that all patients receive optimal care

Research in the intensive care unit (ICU) is commonly thought to pose 'serious risk' to study participants. This perception may be at the root of a variety of impediments to the conduct of clinical trials in the ICU setting. Component analysis offers a promising approach to the ethical analysis of ICU research. Because clinical trials commonly involve a mixture of study interventions, therapeutic and nontherapeutic procedures must be analyzed separately. Therapeutic procedures must meet the requirement of clinical equipoise. Risks associated with nontherapeutic procedures must be minimized consistent with sound scientific design, and be deemed reasonable in relation to the knowledge to be gained. When research involves a vulnerable population, such as adults incapable of providing informed consent, nontherapeutic risks are limited to a minor increase over minimal risk. Understood in this way, the incremental risk posed by participation in ICU research may be minimal. This realization has important implications for review by institutional review boards of such research and for the informed consent process

The use of statistics in medical research has been compared to a religion: it has its high priests, supplicants, and orthodoxy. Although the comparison may be more unfair to religion than to research, a useful lesson can nonetheless be drawn: the practice of clinical research may benefit—as does the spirit—from critical self-examination. Arguably, no aspect of the conduct of clinical trials is currently more controversial—and thus in as dire need of critical examination—than the use of placebo controls. The ethical and scientific controversies associated with placebo-controlled trials, never far below the surface, have once again seized public attention. Clearly, concern about these issues within the professional community runs deep and wide, as evidenced by the volume of response generated by Kenneth Rothman and Karin Michels's recent Critique. Criticisms of the use of placebo controls in clinical research are scattered through the literatureo; our objective is to present the case against placebos in a compendious form that takes account of scientific and statistical as well as normative issues.

The three claims put forward by Dr. Roger Poisson to rationalize his enrollment of ineligible subjects in clinical trials do not justify research fraud. None the less, certain lessons for the conduct of clinical research can be learned from the affair: experimental therapies should be made available to technically ineligible subjects when no effective therapy exists for their disease; further research must investigate the possible benefits of clinical-trial participation; broadly based, pragmatic trials must be regarded as the ideal model; and each eligibility criterion in a clinical-trial protocol should be justified.

As genetic research increasingly focuses on communities, there have been calls for extending research protections to them. We critically examine guidelines developed to protect aboriginal communities and consider their applicability to other communities. These guidelines are based on a model of researcher-community partnership and span the phases of a research project, from protocol development to publication. The complete list of 23 protections may apply to those few non-aboriginal communities, such as the Amish, that are highly cohesive. Although some protections may be applicable to less-cohesive communities, such as Ashkenazi Jews, analysis suggests substantial problems in extending these guidelines in toto beyond the aboriginal communities for which they were developed

Recent guidelines from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandate the inclusion of adequate numbers of women in clinical trials. Ought such standards to apply internationally? Walzer's theory of justice is brought to bear on the problem, the first use of the theory in research ethics, and it argues for broad application of the principle of adequate representation. A number of practical conclusions for research ethics committees (RECs) are outlined. Eligibility criteria in clinical trials ought to be justified by trial designers. Research ethics committees ought to question criteria that seem to exclude unnecessarily women from research participation. The issue of adequate representation should be construed broadly, so as to include consideration of the representation of the elderly, persons with HIV, mental illness and substance abuse disorders in clinical research.

Research involving the vulnerable sick raises difficult challenges for investigators and Institutional Review Boards. Exactly who among the ill counts as vulnerable is a matter of judgement, and involves consideration of susceptibility to harm and capacity to provide free and informed consent. A balanced approach is required when protections are considered, and the benefits as well as the risks of research participation must be carefully weighed. A variety of protections for the vulnerable sick in research are available, including enrolling subjects in a study only with a strong justification, ensuring that consent is free and comprehending, and setting limits on the risk to which they may be asked to endure. Discussion of three contemporary controversies, placebo-controlled trials in the psychiatric setting, phase I clinical trials and oncology patients, and emergency room research involving patients incapable of giving consent, highlights the little recognized prominence of risk-benefit issues in the clinical studies in the vulnerable sick

The current controversy as to the proper role of the placebo control in the evaluation of new treatments for schizophrenia requires an analysis that is sensitive to both ethical and scientific issues. Clinical equipoise, widely regarded as the moral foundation of the randomized controlled trial (RCT), requires the use of best available treatment as the control in RCT. Scientific criticisms of the use of an active control are examined and none present an insuperable barrier to the use of an active control. Indeed, scrutiny of the most recent argument for the use of placebo controls, 'assay sensitivity', suggests that the use of placebo may be the cause of the problem pointed to. Scientific, regulatory, ethical and legal advantages of the use of an active control are described. While the use of a placebo control may be acceptable in carefully defined circumstances, in most cases the use of an active control in schizophrenia research is ethically and scientifically preferable

In contrast to attempts that have been made to measure the clarity of reporting of the methods of clinical trials in journal articles, we report here an attempt to measure the accuracy of methods reporting. We focus in this article on eligibility criteria as a test case for the reporting of clinical trial methods. We examined the reporting of eligibility criteria in the protocol, methods paper (if applicable), journal article, and Clinical Alert for articles appearing in print between January 1988 and September 1994 for which a Clinical Alert had been issued. Eligibility criteria were further classified into five categories in order to examine the content of information loss, if any. On average, 82% of protocol eligibility criteria were reported in methods papers. Journal articles and Clinical Alerts fared somewhat worse: 63% of criteria were reported in journal articles, 19% in Clinical Alerts. In all three categories of medical communication, the reporting of criteria that defined the study disease tended to be complete; reporting of criteria relating to trial precision, patient safety, legal and ethical concerns, and administrative considerations, was not complete. We found that criteria for clinical trial eligibility are frequently under-reported in medical communications. Moreover, some of the criteria omitted are of considerable clinical importance. We suggest that in the design phase of clinical trials, proposed eligibility criteria be scrutinized closely. Those criteria that survive this scrutiny and that have clinical import must be reported upon fully and accurately when communicating trial results