To improve public confidence in clinical research, a number of public and private groups have called for a publicly accessible, comprehensive, and transparent registry of relevant information on clinical trials for drugs and biologics. The public and various entities within the medical community (health care providers, researchers, medical journal editors, pharmaceutical companies, health insurers, and regulators) have different expectations and perceived needs regarding a public clinical trial registry. The IOM Committee on Clinical Trial Registries hosted a workshop on June 27, 2005, to obtain much-needed input from members of the public, public advocate groups, and the broader community of journal editors, pharmaceutical and biotech leaders, NIH, and the FDA. Participants discussed the data elements that have been at the core of debate and commented on issues of compliance and implementation of a national clinical trial registry. Developing a National Registry of Pharmacologic and Biologic Clinical Trials: Workshop Report inlcudes discussions at the workshop centered on the following five concepts, and are described within this report: 1) Purpose, 2) Which Trials to Include, 3) Delayed Disclosure Mechanism, 4) Reporting Results of Completed Trials, and 5) Compliance.
Increasingly over the past five years, uncertainty about reimbursement for routine patient care has been suspected as contributing to problems enrolling people in clinical trials. Clinical trial investigators cannot guarantee that Medicare will pay for the care required, and they must disclose this uncertainty to potential participants during the informed consent process. Since Medicare does not routinely "preauthorize" care (as do many commercial insurers) the uncertainty cannot be dispelled in advance. Thus, patients considering whether to enter trials must assume that they may have to pay bills that Medicare rejects simply because they have enrolled in the trial. This report recommends an explicit policy for reimbursement of routine patient care costs in clinical trials. It further recommends that HCFA provide additional support for selected clinical trials, and that the government support the establishment of a national clinical trials registry. These policies (1) should assure that beneficiaries would not be denied coverage merely because they have volunteered to participate in a clinical trial; and (2) would not impose excessive administrative burdens on HCFA, its fiscal intermediaries and carriers, or investigators, providers, or participants in clinical trials. Explicit rules would have the added benefit of increasing the uniformity of reimbursement decisions made by Medicare fiscal intermediaries and carriers in different parts of the country. Greater uniformity would, in turn, decrease the uncertainty about reimbursement when providers and patients embark on a clinical trial.
To improve public confidence in clinical research, a number of public and private groups have called for a publicly accessible, comprehensive, and transparent registry of relevant information on clinical trials for drugs and biologics. The public and various entities within the medical community (health care providers, researchers, medical journal editors, pharmaceutical companies, health insurers, and regulators) have different expectations and perceived needs regarding a public clinical trial registry. The IOM Committee on Clinical Trial Registries hosted a workshop on June 27, 2005, to obtain much-needed input from members of the public, public advocate groups, and the broader community of journal editors, pharmaceutical and biotech leaders, NIH, and the FDA. Participants discussed the data elements that have been at the core of debate and commented on issues of compliance and implementation of a national clinical trial registry. Developing a National Registry of Pharmacologic and Biologic Clinical Trials: Workshop Report inlcudes discussions at the workshop centered on the following five concepts, and are described within this report: 1) Purpose, 2) Which Trials to Include, 3) Delayed Disclosure Mechanism, 4) Reporting Results of Completed Trials, and 5) Compliance.
Increasingly over the past five years, uncertainty about reimbursement for routine patient care has been suspected as contributing to problems enrolling people in clinical trials. Clinical trial investigators cannot guarantee that Medicare will pay for the care required, and they must disclose this uncertainty to potential participants during the informed consent process. Since Medicare does not routinely "preauthorize" care (as do many commercial insurers) the uncertainty cannot be dispelled in advance. Thus, patients considering whether to enter trials must assume that they may have to pay bills that Medicare rejects simply because they have enrolled in the trial. This report recommends an explicit policy for reimbursement of routine patient care costs in clinical trials. It further recommends that HCFA provide additional support for selected clinical trials, and that the government support the establishment of a national clinical trials registry. These policies (1) should assure that beneficiaries would not be denied coverage merely because they have volunteered to participate in a clinical trial; and (2) would not impose excessive administrative burdens on HCFA, its fiscal intermediaries and carriers, or investigators, providers, or participants in clinical trials. Explicit rules would have the added benefit of increasing the uniformity of reimbursement decisions made by Medicare fiscal intermediaries and carriers in different parts of the country. Greater uniformity would, in turn, decrease the uncertainty about reimbursement when providers and patients embark on a clinical trial.
Many of the trials taking place today are unregistered and unpublished, meaning that the information that they generate remains invisible to both the scientific community and the public. This undermines public trust, slowing the pace of medical advancement and potentially putting patients at risk. All trials conducted on NHS treatments-and all other trials receiving public funding-should be prospectively registered and their results published in a scientific journal. While the focus should be on implementing this change for future trials, the Government must also do what it can to ensure that historic trials are registered and published, particularly where they have been publically funded. The Government should also take steps to facilitate greater sharing of the raw data generated during a trial in a responsible and controlled way, with the knowledge and consent of patients. The report also draws attention to the recent fall in the number of trials taking place in the UK. It finds that the need for multiple governance approvals from participating NHS organisations remained the biggest barrier to setting up a UK trial, but that lack of public awareness was also a key issue. Recruiting participants can also be a challenge. The report calls on the Government to take its recommendations into account in ongoing discussions regarding the revision of European clinical trials legislation and in its response to the European Medicines Agency's consultation on the release of clinical trial data, which closes at the end of this month
The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Program has played a key role in developing new and improved cancer therapies. However, the program is falling short of its potential, and the IOM recommends changes that aim to transform the Cooperative Group Program into a dynamic system that efficiently responds to emerging scientific knowledge; involves broad cooperation of stakeholders; and leverages evolving technologies to provide high-quality, practice-changing research.
Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.
In the nineteenth century some scientists argued that women should not be educated because thinking would use energy needed by the uterus for reproduction. The proof? Educated women had a lower birth rate. Today's researchers can only shake their heads at such reasoning. Yet professional journals and the popular press are increasingly criticizing medical research for ignoring women's health issues. Women and Health Research examines the facts behind the public's perceptions about women participating as subjects in medical research. With the goal of increasing researchers' awareness of this important topic, the book explores issues related to maintaining justice (in its ethical sense) in clinical studies. Leading experts present general principles for the ethical conduct of research on womenâ€"principles that are especially important in the light of recent changes in federal policy on the inclusion of women in clinical research. Women and Health Research documents the historical shift from a paternalistic approach by researchers toward women and a disproportionate reliance on certain groups for research to one that emphasizes proper access for women as subjects in clinical studies in order to ensure that women receive the benefits of research. The book addresses present-day challenges to equity in four areas: Scientificâ€"Do practical aspects of scientific research work at cross-purposes to gender equity? Focusing on drug trials, the authors identify rationales for excluding people from research based on demographics. Social and Ethicalâ€"The authors offer compelling discussions on subjectivity in science, the evidence for male bias, and issues related to race and ethnicity, as well as the recruitment, retention, and protection of research participants. Legalâ€"Women and Health Research reviews federal research policies that affect the inclusion of women and evaluates the basis for researchers' fears about liability, citing court cases. Riskâ€"The authors focus on risks to reproduction and offspring in clinical drug trials, exploring how risks can be identified for study participants, who should make the assessment of risk and benefit for participation in a clinical study, and how legal implications could be addressed. This landmark study will be of immediate use to the research community, policymakers, women's health advocates, attorneys, and individuals.
The report Access To Clinical Trial Information And The Stockpiling Of Tamiflu (HC 295) examines two separate but connected issues; the routine withholding of clinical trial information from doctors and researchers, and the effectiveness of stockpiling of Tamiflu during an influenza pandemic. The full results of clinical trials are being routinely and legally withheld from doctors and researchers by the manufacturers of medicines. The ability of doctors, researchers and patients to make informed decisions about treatments is being undermined. Regulators and the industry have recently made proposals to open up access, but these do not cover the issue of access to the results of trials in the past which bear on the efficacy and safety of medicines in use today. Research suggests that the probability of completed trials being published is roughly 50%. Trials which give a favorable verdict are about twice as likely to be published as trials giving unfavorable
When 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger died in a gene transfer study at the University of Pennsylvania, the national spotlight focused on the procedures used to ensure research participants' safety and their capacity to safeguard the well-being of those who volunteer for research studies. Responsible Research outlines a three-pronged approach to ensure the protection of every participant through the establishment of effective Human Research Participant Protection Programs (HRPPPs). The approach includes: Improved research review processes, Recognition and integration of research participants' contributions to the system, and Vigilant maintenance of HRPPP performance. Issues addressed in the book include the need for in-depth, complimentary reviews of science, ethics, and conflict of interest reviews; desired qualifications for investigators and reviewers; the process of informed consent; federal and institutional oversight; and the role of accreditation. Recommendations for areas of key interest include suggestions for legislative approaches, compensation for research-related injury, and the refocusing of the mission of institutional review boards. Responsible Research will be important to anyone interested in the issues that are relevant to the practice of using human subjects as research participants, but especially so to policy makers, research administrators, investigators, and research sponsorsâ€"but also including volunteers who may agree to serve as research participants.
Data sharing can accelerate new discoveries by avoiding duplicative trials, stimulating new ideas for research, and enabling the maximal scientific knowledge and benefits to be gained from the efforts of clinical trial participants and investigators. At the same time, sharing clinical trial data presents risks, burdens, and challenges. These include the need to protect the privacy and honor the consent of clinical trial participants; safeguard the legitimate economic interests of sponsors; and guard against invalid secondary analyses, which could undermine trust in clinical trials or otherwise harm public health. Sharing Clinical Trial Data presents activities and strategies for the responsible sharing of clinical trial data. With the goal of increasing scientific knowledge to lead to better therapies for patients, this book identifies guiding principles and makes recommendations to maximize the benefits and minimize risks. This report offers guidance on the types of clinical trial data available at different points in the process, the points in the process at which each type of data should be shared, methods for sharing data, what groups should have access to data, and future knowledge and infrastructure needs. Responsible sharing of clinical trial data will allow other investigators to replicate published findings and carry out additional analyses, strengthen the evidence base for regulatory and clinical decisions, and increase the scientific knowledge gained from investments by the funders of clinical trials. The recommendations of Sharing Clinical Trial Data will be useful both now and well into the future as improved sharing of data leads to a stronger evidence base for treatment. This book will be of interest to stakeholders across the spectrum of research-from funders, to researchers, to journals, to physicians, and ultimately, to patients.
In the realm of health care, privacy protections are needed to preserve patients' dignity and prevent possible harms. Ten years ago, to address these concerns as well as set guidelines for ethical health research, Congress called for a set of federal standards now known as the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In its 2009 report, Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research, the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information concludes that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not protect privacy as well as it should, and that it impedes important health research.
Technologies collectively called omics enable simultaneous measurement of an enormous number of biomolecules; for example, genomics investigates thousands of DNA sequences, and proteomics examines large numbers of proteins. Scientists are using these technologies to develop innovative tests to detect disease and to predict a patient's likelihood of responding to specific drugs. Following a recent case involving premature use of omics-based tests in cancer clinical trials at Duke University, the NCI requested that the IOM establish a committee to recommend ways to strengthen omics-based test development and evaluation. This report identifies best practices to enhance development, evaluation, and translation of omics-based tests while simultaneously reinforcing steps to ensure that these tests are appropriately assessed for scientific validity before they are used to guide patient treatment in clinical trials.
Health is a highly valued, visible, and concrete investment that has the power to both save lives and enhance the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the world. While the United States has made a major commitment to global health, there remains a wide gap between existing knowledge and tools that could improve health if applied universally, and the utilization of these known tools across the globe. The U.S. Commitment to Global Health concludes that the U.S. government and U.S.-based foundations, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and commercial entities have an opportunity to improve global health. The book includes recommendations that these U.S. institutions: increase the utilization of existing interventions to achieve significant health gains; generate and share knowledge to address prevalent health problems in disadvantaged countries; invest in people, institutions, and capacity building with global partners; increase the quantity and quality of U.S. financial commitments to global health; and engage in respectful partnerships to improve global health. In doing so, the U.S. can play a major role in saving lives and improving the quality of life for millions around the world.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) profoundly affects the lives of all Americans. Its agencies and programs protect against domestic and global health threats, assure the safety of food and drugs, advance the science of preventing and conquering disease, provide safeguards for America's vulnerable populations, and improve health for everyone. However, the department faces serious and complex obstacles, chief among them rising health care costs and a broadening range of health challenges. Over time, additional responsibilities have been layered onto the department, and other responsibilities removed, often without corresponding shifts in positions, procedures, structures, and resources. At the request of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, HHS in the 21st Century assesses whether HHS is "ideally organized" to meet the enduring and emerging health challenges facing our nation. The committee identifies many factors that affect the department's ability to address its range of responsibilities, including divergence in the missions and goals of the department's agencies, limited flexibility in spending, impending workforce shortages, difficulty in retaining skilled professionals, and challenges in effectively partnering with the private sector.
Collaborations of physicians and researchers with industry can provide valuable benefits to society, particularly in the translation of basic scientific discoveries to new therapies and products. Recent reports and news stories have, however, documented disturbing examples of relationships and practices that put at risk the integrity of medical research, the objectivity of professional education, the quality of patient care, the soundness of clinical practice guidelines, and the public's trust in medicine. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice provides a comprehensive look at conflict of interest in medicine. It offers principles to inform the design of policies to identify, limit, and manage conflicts of interest without damaging constructive collaboration with industry. It calls for both short-term actions and long-term commitments by institutions and individuals, including leaders of academic medical centers, professional societies, patient advocacy groups, government agencies, and drug, device, and pharmaceutical companies. Failure of the medical community to take convincing action on conflicts of interest invites additional legislative or regulatory measures that may be overly broad or unduly burdensome. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice makes several recommendations for strengthening conflict of interest policies and curbing relationships that create risks with little benefit. The book will serve as an invaluable resource for individuals and organizations committed to high ethical standards in all realms of medicine.
For many years, laboratory dogs have served as important animal models for biomedical research that has advanced human health. Conducted at the request of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), this report assesses whether laboratory dogs are or will continue to be necessary for biomedical research related to the VA's mission. The report concludes that using laboratory dogs in research at the VA is scientifically necessary for only a few areas of current biomedical research. The report recommends that the VA adopt an expanded set of criteria for determining when it is scientifically necessary to use laboratory dogs in VA biomedical research; that the VA promote the development and use of alternatives to laboratory dogs; and highlights opportunities for the VA to enhance the welfare of laboratory dogs that are being used in biomedical research areas for which they have been deemed necessary.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.