Nav: Home

Why the bar needs to be raised for human clinical trials

January 30, 2017

Standards for authorizing first-time trials of drugs in humans are lax, and should be strengthened in several ways, McGill University researchers argue in a paper published today in Nature.

While regulators in North America and Europe evaluate safety before human trials can proceed, they do not currently demand meaningful evidence for potential efficacy, write McGill bioethicist Jonathan Kimmelman and PhD student Carole Federico in a commentary article. "We believe that many (first-in-human) studies are launched on the basis of flimsy, under-scrutinized evidence."

Trials of ineffective therapies place burdens on society even if research participants aren't harmed directly, the researchers argue. Drug development soaks up financial and research resources; patients and healthy volunteers involved in testing a dud treatment miss out on more promising ones; and expenses wasted on ineffective therapies are often passed on to healthcare systems in the form of higher drug prices. The argument for better scrutiny of animal studies may be especially timely, since the incoming U.S. president has indicated he intends to weaken requirements for clinical evidence of efficacy before drugs are approved.

A clinical trial in France that led to the death of one person last year and hospitalization of five others has drawn intense scrutiny into how the drug's toxicity could have been anticipated, the researchers note. Yet ethical review boards -- bodies at research institutions and universities that are set up to protect patients in clinical trials -- seldom recognize that they have a duty to evaluate whether an experimental treatment is promising enough to warrant human testing.

"Commercial interests and hope, alone, cannot be trusted to ensure that human trials launch only when the case for clinical potential is robust," says Kimmelman. "Ethics requires a clear-eyed evaluation of a drug's potential."

The McGill researchers propose several measures to reinforce standards, including:
  • Require drugs sponsors to include negative results from animal studies in documents submitted to investigators and ethics committees;
  • Allow trials to proceed only after careful vetting of the preclinical evidence by independent experts;
  • Encourage reviewers to consider a broad base of evidence in assessing the probability that a drug will prove clinically useful: for example, how have other drugs in the same class performed in trials?


Critics of the proposal may object that this approach could increase costs and time for drug development, the researchers note. But more-thorough assessments of clinical potential before trials could reduce failure rates, they say, and thereby offset development costs.
-end-
"Consider drug efficacy before first-in-human trials", Jonathan Kimmelman and Carole Federico, Nature, published online Jan. 30, 2017. DOI: 10.1038/542025a http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/542025a

Kimmelman directs STREAM, a research group at McGill devoted to understanding the ethics and policy of drug development; Federico is a PhD student in his lab.

McGill University

Related Clinical Trials Articles:

Review evaluates how AI could boost the success of clinical trials
In a review publishing July 17, 2019 in the journal Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, researchers examined how artificial intelligence (AI) could affect drug development in the coming decade.
Kidney patients are neglected in clinical trials
The exclusion of patients with kidney diseases from clinical trials remains an unsolved problem that hinders optimal care of these patients.
Clinical trials beginning for possible preeclampsia treatment
For over 20 years, a team of researchers at Lund University has worked on developing a drug against preeclampsia -- a serious disorder which annually affects around 9 million pregnant women worldwide and is one of the main causes of death in both mothers and unborn babies.
Underenrollment in clinical trials: Patients not the problem
The authors of the study published this month in the Journal of Clinical Oncology investigated why many cancer clinical trials fail to enroll enough patients.
When designing clinical trials for huntington's disease, first ask the experts
Progress in understanding the genetic mutation responsible for Huntington's disease (HD) and at least some molecular underpinnings of the disease has resulted in a new era of clinical testing of potential treatments.
More Clinical Trials News and Clinical Trials Current Events

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Rethinking Anger
Anger is universal and complex: it can be quiet, festering, justified, vengeful, and destructive. This hour, TED speakers explore the many sides of anger, why we need it, and who's allowed to feel it. Guests include psychologists Ryan Martin and Russell Kolts, writer Soraya Chemaly, former talk radio host Lisa Fritsch, and business professor Dan Moshavi.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#537 Science Journalism, Hold the Hype
Everyone's seen a piece of science getting over-exaggerated in the media. Most people would be quick to blame journalists and big media for getting in wrong. In many cases, you'd be right. But there's other sources of hype in science journalism. and one of them can be found in the humble, and little-known press release. We're talking with Chris Chambers about doing science about science journalism, and where the hype creeps in. Related links: The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial This...