Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs): A few ethical considerations

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are studies in which the need for patients to physically access hospital-based trial sites is reduced or eliminated. The CoViD-19 pandemic has caused a significant increase in DCT: a survey shows that 76% of pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and Contract Research Organizations adopted decentralized techniques during the early phase of the pandemic. The implementation of DCTs relies on the use of digital tools such as e-consent, apps, wearable devices, Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePRO), telemedicine, as well as on moving trial activities to the patient's home (e.g., drug delivery) or to local healthcare settings (i.e., community-based diagnosis and care facilities). DCTs adapt to patients' routines, allow patients to participate regardless of where they live by removing logistical barriers, offer better access to the study and the investigational product, and permit the inclusion of more diverse and more representative populations. The feasibility and quality of DCTs depends on several requirements including dedicated infrastructures and staff, an adequate regulatory framework, and partnerships between research sites, patients and sponsors. The evaluation of Ethics Committees (ECs) is crucial to the process of innovating and digitalizing clinical trials: adequate assessment tools and a suitable regulatory framework are needed for evaluation by ECs. DCTs also raise issues, many of which are of considerable ethical significance. These include the implications for the relationship between patients and healthcare staff, for the social dimension of the patient, for data integrity (at the source, during transmission, in the analysis phase), for personal data protection, and for the possible risks to health and safety. Despite their considerable growth, DCTs have only received little attention from bioethicists. This paper offers a review on some ethical implications and requirements of DCTs in order to encourage further ethical reflection on this rapidly emerging field.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship

          There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders—representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers—have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings. Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals. This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Web-based trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tolterodine ER 4 mg in participants with overactive bladder: REMOTE trial.

            Participatory patient-centered, web-based methods could streamline and improve the convenience of clinical trial participation. We used an entirely web-based approach to conduct a randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 4 (REMOTE) trial under an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to evaluate tolterodine extended release (ER) 4 mg for overactive bladder. The trial was designed to replicate previous clinic-based trials of tolterodine ER but was conducted via the web from one clinical site overseen by physicians. Participants were recruited via the web, screened for eligibility using web-based questionnaires, had laboratory testing in their community, and entered a run-in phase requiring bladder e-diaries. Informed consent was obtained using an interactive web-based method with physician countersignature. Study medication was shipped directly to participants. With a goal of 283 randomized participants, 5157 registered on the trial website. Of 456 who passed initial screening, identification verification, and signed consent, 237 passed additional medical screening and were countersigned by the investigator. After laboratory testing, 118 entered the placebo run-in; only 18 passed e-diary assessments and were randomized to treatment. At week 12, the mean change from the baseline in micturitions/24 hours (primary endpoint) was -2.4 for tolterodine ER versus -0.8 for placebo [treatment difference (95% CI): -1.6 (-3.9, 0.6)]. The REMOTE trial is the first entirely web-based trial conducted under an IND application. The efficacy observed was consistent with results from conventional trials. With simplification of multi-step screening and testing, web-based trials or their component parts should provide a participant-friendly approach to many clinical trials. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Remote Research and Clinical Trial Integrity During and After the Coronavirus Pandemic

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                15 December 2022
                2022
                : 10
                : 1081150
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Bioethics Unit, Istituto Superiore di Sanità , Rome, Italy
                [2] 2Clinical Research Department, FADOI Research Centre , Milan, Italy
                Author notes

                Edited by: Tambone Vittoradolfo, Campus Bio-Medico University, Italy

                Reviewed by: Solomiia Fedushko, Lviv Polytechnic, Ukraine; Armin D. Weinberg, Baylor College of Medicine, United States

                *Correspondence: Carlo Petrini carlo.petrini@ 123456iss.it

                This article was submitted to Digital Public Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2022.1081150
                9797802
                36590004
                59b43dcd-e745-4e7b-b0e7-8914036f8369
                Copyright © 2022 Petrini, Mannelli, Riva, Gainotti and Gussoni.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 26 October 2022
                : 30 November 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 35, Pages: 8, Words: 5721
                Categories
                Public Health
                Review

                dcts,research ethics,bioethics,healthcare,digitalization
                dcts, research ethics, bioethics, healthcare, digitalization

                Comments

                Comment on this article