Bioethical considerations on incentives for healthy volunteer participants in Phase I Research

Authors

Keywords:

research, healthy volunteers, Phase I clinical trials, bioethics

Abstract

Phase I Clinical Trials are conducted with the participation of healthy volunteers to test the safety and tolerability of pharmaceutical products. In them, participants are exposed to study drug risks without the possibility of direct medical benefit and usually must spend days or weeks at a research site. Incentives such as monetary payments are used to encourage enrollment and compensate participants for their time. These characteristics of Phase I healthy volunteer trials create a research context that differs markedly from most other clinical research, as most of them are financially vulnerable individuals. This paper aims to analyze bioethical factors that influence the granting of incentives to healthy volunteer participants in Phase I research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Maria de la Luz Casas Martinez, Universidad Panamericana, México

Coordinador de investigación del Centro Interdisciplinario de Bioética, Universidad Panamericana, México

References

1. NHS. Health Research Authority. Phase 1 clinical trials. [Internet]. Stratford, London: Research Ethics Committees, 10 May 2022. [cited 17/2/2023]. Available from: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/phase-1-clinical-trials/

2. Williams Q, Fisher JA. Captive to the Clinic: Phase I Clinical Trials as Temporal Total Institutions. Sociological Inquiry. [Internet]. 2018. [cited 17/2/2023]; 88: 724-48. doi: 10.1111/soin.12228

3. Fisher JA. Adverse Events: Race, Inequality, and the Testing of New Pharmaceuticals. (Anthropologies of American Medicine: Culture, Power, and Practice) Illustrated Edition. Nueva York: New York University Press, 2020.

4. Departamento de Salud, Educación y Bienestar de los Estados Unidos. Informe Belmont. [Internet]. Comisión nacional para la protección de los sujetos humanos ante la investigación biomédica y de comportamiento, 1979. [consultado 1/8/2022]. Disponible en: http://www.conbioeticamexico.salud.gob.mx/descargas/pdf/normatividad/normatinternacional/10._INTL_Informe_Belmont.pdf

5. Organización Panamericana de la Salud y Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas. Pautas éticas internacionales para la investigación relacionada con la salud con seres humanos, Cuarta Edición. Ginebra: Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas (CIOMS); 2016. Disponible en: https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CIOMS-EthicalGuideline_SP_INTERIOR-FINAL.pdf

6. Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D. An Ethical Framework for Biomedical Research. In: The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. ed. Emanuel, E J., et al. Nueva York: Oxford University Press, 2008: 123-35.

7. Instituto Nacional contra el Cáncer. (NIH) [Internet]. Ensayo clínico de fase I/II: Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos. Instituto Nacional del Cáncer; 2016 abril 5. [citado 1/8/2022]; Disponible en: https://www.cancer.gov/espanol/publicaciones/diccionarios/diccionario-cancer/def/ensayo-clinico-de-fase-i-ii

8. Asociación Médica Mundial. [Internet]. Declaración de Helsinki de la AMM- Principios Éticos para las Investigaciones Médicas en Seres Humanos; 21 marzo 2017. [citado 1/8/2022]. Disponible en: https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/

9. Organización Panamericana de la Salud y Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas. Reembolso y compensación para los participantes en una investigación.(p. 59 -61) En: Pautas éticas internacionales para la investigación relacionada con la salud con seres humanos, Cuarta Edición. Ginebra: Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas (CIOMS); 2016. Disponible en: https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CIOMS-EthicalGuideline_SP_INTERIOR-FINAL.pdf

10. Downing NS, Shah ND, Aminawung JA, Pease AM, Zeitoun JD, Krumholz HM, et.al. Postmarket Safety Events among Novel Therapeutics Approved by the US Food and Drug Ad- ministration between 2001 and 2010. Journal of the American Medical Association [Internet]. 2017. [cited 17/2/2023]; 317: 1854-63. Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2625319#full-text-tab

11. Fernández LH, Joffe S, Thirumurthy H, Xie D, Largent EA. Association between Financial Incentives and Participant Deception about Study Eligibility. JAMA Network Open [Internet]. 2019 [cited 1/8/2022]; 2(1): e187355. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7355

12. Strom B L. How the US Drug Safety System Should Be Changed. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). [Internet]. 2006 [cited 1/8/2022]; 295 (17): 2072- 75. Available from: https://courses.washington.edu/pharm309/StromJAMA.pdf

13. Kass N, Lyerly AD. Justice and Women's Participation in Research. In: Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Re- search. 2nd ed., ed. Kahn JP, Mastroianni AC, Sugarman J. Nueva York: Oxford University Press, 2018; 91-111.

14. MacKay D, Witte Saylor K. Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection. American Journal of Bioethics [Internet]. 2020 [cited 1/8/2022]; 20 (2). doi: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1701731.

15. Gutierrez López MD. Qué es la Medicina Traslacional y por qué es clave para innovar en salud. The conversation Journal. 2020. Disponible en: https://theconversation.com/que-es-la-medicina-traslacional-y-por-que-es-clave-para-innovar-en-salud-145739. Published: September 23, 2020.

16. Chen A, Wright HH, AyomideIgun ME, Soon G, Pariser AR, Fadiran EO. Representación de mujeres y minorías en ensayos clínicos para nuevas entidades moleculares y productos biológicos terapéuticos originales aprobados por FDA CDER de 2013 a 2015. Journal of Women's Health [Internet]. 2018 [citado 1/8/2022]; 27(4): 418-29. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6272

17. Heinrich J. Seguridad de los medicamentos: la mayoría de los medicamentos retirados en años recientes tenían mayores riesgos para la salud de las mujeres. EE. General Accounting Office. 19 de enero de 2010. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-01-286r.pdf.

18. Cottingham MD, Fisher JA. Risk and emotion among healthy volunteers in Clinical Trials. Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2016 [cited 1/8/2022]; 79(3): 222-242. doi: 10.1177/0190272516657655. Epub 2016 Jul 29.

19. Monahan T, Fisher JA. 'I'm Still a Hustler': Entrepreneurial Responses to Precarity by Participants in Phase I Clinical Trials. Econ Soc. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 1/8/2022]; 44 (4): 545-66. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27524854/

20. Tolich M. What if Institutional Research Boards (IRBs) treated healthy volunteers in clinical trials as their clients?. Australasian Medical Journal [Internet]. 2010 [cited 1/8/2022]; 3 (12): 767-71. doi: 10.4066/AMJ.2010.431

21. Cottingham MD, Kalbaugh JM, Swezey T, Fisher JA. Exceptional Risk: Healthy Volunteers' Perceptions of HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes [Internet]. 2018 [cited 1/8/2022]; 79: S30-S36. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001818

22. Elliott C, Abadie R. Exploiting a Research Underclass in Phase 1 Clinical Trials. New England Journal of Medicine, Perspective [Internet]. 2008 [cited 1/8/2022]; 358 (22):2316-7. Available from: https://www.nejm.org›doi›full›nejmp0801872

23. Fisher JA, Walker RL. Advancing Ethics and Policy for Healthy-Volunteer Research through a Model-Organism Framework. Ethics and Human Research [Internet]. 2019 [cited 1/8/2022]; 41(1): 4-14. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500001.

24. Johnson RA, Rid A, Emanuel E, Wendler D. Risks of phase I research with healthy participants: A systematic review. Clinical Trials [Internet]. 2016 Apr[cited 1/8/2022]; 13(2):149-60. doi: 10.1177/1740774515602868. Epub 2015 Sep 8.

25. Fisher JA, McManus L, Cottingham MD, Kalbaugh JM, Wood MM, Monahan T, Walker RL. Healthy volunteers' perceptions of risk in US Phase I clinical trials: A mixed-methods study. PLoS Medicine [Internet]. 2018 [cited 1/8/2022]; 15(11): e1002698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002698

26. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Information Sheet Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors: FDA Inspections of Clinical Investigators. junio de 2010, https://www.fda.gov/media/75185/download.

27. Walker RL, Fisher JA. 'My Body Is One of the Best Commodities': Exploring the Ethics of Commodification in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Clinical Trials. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2019; 29(4): 305-31. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2019.0028.

28. Graham M, Weijer C. Working for the weekend is not meaningful work. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2019; 19 (9): 48-50.

Published

2023-07-05

How to Cite

1.
Casas Martinez M de la L. Bioethical considerations on incentives for healthy volunteer participants in Phase I Research. Humanid. méd. [Internet]. 2023 Jul. 5 [cited 2025 May 9];23(2):e2522. Available from: https://humanidadesmedicas.sld.cu/index.php/hm/article/view/2522

Issue

Section

Original articles