Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T07:40:13.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Appraising Harm in Phase I Trials: Healthy Volunteers' Accounts of Adverse Events

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Lisa McManus ,
Arlene Davis ,
Rebecca L. Forcier  and
Jill A. Fisher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While risk of harm is an important focus for whether clinical research on humans can and should proceed, there is uncertainty about what constitutes harm to a trial participant. In Phase I trials on healthy volunteers, the purpose of the research is to document and measure safety concerns associated with investigational drugs, and participants are financially compensated for their enrollment in these studies. In this article, we investigate how characterizations of harm are narrated by healthy volunteers in the context of the adverse events (AEs) they experience during clinical trials. Drawing upon qualitative research, we find that participants largely minimize, deny, or re-attribute the cause of these AEs. We illustrate how participants' interpretations of AEs may be shaped both by the clinical trial environment and their economic motivation to participate. While these narratives are emblematic of the larger ambiguity surrounding harm in the context of clinical trial participation, we argue that these interpretations also problematically maintain the narrative of the safety of clinical trials, the ethics of testing investigational drugs on healthy people, and the rigor of data collected in the specter of such ambiguity.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 47 , Issue 2: Human Subject Protection , Summer 2019 , pp. 323 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. E. and Corneli, A., 100 Questions (and Answers) About Research Ethics (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2017).Google Scholar
Childress, J. F., “Nuremberg's Legacy: Some Ethical Reflections,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 43, no. 3 (Spring 2000): 347-361; H. K. Beecher, “Ethics and Clinical Research,” New England Journal of Medicine 274, no. 24 (1966): 1354-1360; U.S. Public Health Service, “Final Report of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Ad Hoc Advisory Panel,” edited by Education U.S. Department of Health, and Welfare, Washington, DC, 1973; Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, “Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: Final Report” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995).Google Scholar
Lederer, S. E., Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in American before the Second World War (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); E. J. Emanuel, D. Wendler, and C. Grady, “What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?” JAMA 283, no. 20 (2000): 2701-2711.Google Scholar
Resnik, D.B., “Eliminating the Daily Life Risks Standard from the Definition of Minimal Risk,” Journal of Medical Ethics 31, no. 1 (2005): 35-38; A. Rid, E. J. Emanuel, and D. Wendler, “Evaluating the Risks of Clinical Research,” JAMA 304, no. 13 (2010): 1472-1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faden, R. R. and Beauchamp, T. L., A History and Theory of Informed Consent (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
Stark, L., “Reading Trust between the Lines: ‘Housekeeping Work’ and Inequality in Human-Subjects Review,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 22, no. 4 (2013): 391-399; L. Stark, Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012); G. E. Henderson, “Is Informed Consent Broken?” American Journal of the Medical Sciences 342, no. 4 (2011): 267-272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, O. P., “A Risky Business: The Detection of Adverse Drug Reactions in Clinical Trials and Post-Marketing Exercises,” Social Science and Medicine 55 (2002): 497-507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. J., “Assessment and Reporting of Harm,” in Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, edited by Friedman, L. M., Furberg, C. D., DeMets, D. L., Reboussin, D. M., and Granger, C. B. (New York: Springer, 2015): 255-277.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. A., Rid, A., Emanuel, E., and Wendler, D., “Risks of Phase I Research with Healthy Participants: A Systematic Review,” Clinical Trials 13, no. 2 (2016): 149-160; E. J. Emanuel, G. Bedarida, K. Macci, N. B. Gabler, A. Rid, and D. Wendler, “Quantifying the Risks of Non-Oncology Phase I Research in Healthy Volunteers: Meta-Analysis of Phase I Studies,” British Medical Journal 350 (2015): h3271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibille, M., Deigat, N., Janin, A., Kirkesseli, S., and Durand, D. Vital, “Adverse Events in Phase-I Studies: A Report in 1015 Healthy Volunteers,” European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 54 (1998): 13-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. J. J. and Darbyshire, J., “Injury to Research Volunteers: The Clinical-Research Nightmare,” New England Journal of Medicine 354 (2006): 1869-1871; S. Chan, “6 Hospitalized, One of Them Brain-Dead, after Drug Trial in France,” New York Times, January 15, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, C., “Guinea-Pigging: Healthy Human Subjects for Drug-Safety Trials Are in Demand. But Is It a Living?” The New Yorker (January 7, 2008): 36-41; R. Abadie, The Professional Guinea Pig: Big Pharma and the Risky World of Human Subjects (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Motluck, A., “Occupation: Lab Rat,” New Scientist, July 28, 2009, 40-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camporesi, S. and McNamee, M. J., “Performance Enhancement, Elite Athletes and Anti Doping Governance: Comparing Human Guinea Pigs in Pharmaceutical Research and Professional Sports,” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 9, no. 4 (2014): 1-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelblute, H. B. and Fisher, J. A., “Using ‘Clinical Trial Diaries’ to Track Patterns of Participation for Serial Healthy Volunteers in U.S. Phase I Studies,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 10, no. 1 (2015): 65-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iltis, A. S., “Payments to Normal Healthy Volunteers in Phase 1 Trials: Avoiding Undue Influence While Distributing Fairly the Burdens of Research Participation,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34, no. 1 (2009): 68-90; M. Wilkinson and A. Moore, “Inducement in Research,” Bioethics 11, no. 5 (1997): 373-389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresser, R., “Subversive Subjects: Rule-Breaking and Deception in Clinical Trials,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41, no. 4 (2013): 829-840; C. L. Tishler and S. Bartholomae. “Repeat Participation among Normal Healthy Research Volunteers: Professional Guinea Pigs in Clinical Trials?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46, no. 4 (2003): 508-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelblute and Fisher, supra note 15.Google Scholar
Fisher, J. A. and Kalbaugh, C. A., “Challenging Assumptions About Minority Participation in U.S. Clinical Research,” American Journal of Public Health 101, no. 12 (2011): 2217-2222; J. A. Fisher, “Stopped Hearts, Amputated Toes, and NASA: Contemporary Legends among Healthy Volunteers in US Phase I Clinical Trials,” Sociology of Health and Illness 37, no. 1 (2015): 127-142; C. Grady, G. Bedarida, N. Sinaii, M. A. Gregorio, and E. J. Emanuel, “Motivations, Enrollment Decisions, and Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Healthy Volunteers in Phase 1 Research,” Clinical Trials 14, no. 5 (2017): 526-536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibille et al., supra note 10.Google Scholar
Dickert, N., Emanuel, E., and Grady, C., “Paying Research Subjects: An Analysis of Current Policies,” Annals of Internal Medicine 136, no. 5 (2002): 368-373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See also Fisher, supra note 19.Google Scholar
Wood and Darbyshire, supra note 11.Google Scholar
Hedgecoe, A., “A Deviation from Standard Design? Clinical Trials, Research Ethics Committees, and the Regulatory Co-Construction of Organizational Deviance,” Social Studies of Science 44, no. 1 (2014): 59-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See also Fisher, J. A., McManus, L., Cottingham, M. D., Kalbaugh, J. M., Wood, M. M., Monahan, T., and Walker, R. L., “Healthy Volunteers' Perceptions of Risk in U.S. Phase I Clinical Trials: A Mixed-Methods Study,” PLOS Medicine (forthcoming).Google Scholar
See also McManus, L. and Fisher, J. A., “To Report or Not to Report: Exploring Healthy Volunteers' Rationales for Disclosing Adverse Events in Phase I Drug Trials,” AJOB Empirical Bioethics 9, no. 2 (2018): 82-90.Google Scholar
Kirkby, H. M., Calvert, M., Draper, H., Keeley, T., and Wilson, S., “What Potential Research Participants Want to Know About Research: A Systematic Review,” BMJ Open 2, no. 3 (2012): e000509; E. Lévesque, Y. Joly, and J. Simard, “Return of Research Results: General Principles and International Perspectives,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39, no. 4 (2011): 583-592; F. A. Miller, R. Christensen, M. Giacomini, and J. S. Robert, “Duty to Disclose What? Querying the Putative Obligation to Return Research Results to Participants,” Journal of Medical Ethics 34, no. 3 (2008): 210-213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson et al., supra note 9; Emanuel et al., supra note 9.Google Scholar
Fisher, J. A. and Walker, R. L., “Advancing Ethics and Policy for Healthy-Volunteer Research through a Model-Organism Framework,” Ethics and Human Research 41, no. 1 (2019): 4-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar