scholarly journals A systematic review of Federal Drug Administration Docket for community consultation and public disclosure in exception from informed consent trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrianne N Haggins ◽  
Deneil Harney ◽  
Sara Scott ◽  
Robert Silbergleit
Author(s):  
Neal W. Dickert ◽  
Kathleen Metz ◽  
Michael D. Fetters ◽  
Adrianne N. Haggins ◽  
Deneil K. Harney ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-268
Author(s):  
Deborah R. Barnbaum

In January 2001, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed annual public disclosure of adverse events during gene therapy and xenotransplantation trials. The proposed policy raises the following questions: (1) Is the reformed policy in accord with the FDA's long-standing informed consent policies? (2) Why pair gene therapy trials and xenotransplantation trials in the revised guidelines? (3) Why single out these trials for public disclosure of adverse events? Each question is examined, and three conclusions are drawn. First, the FDA's own policies on informed consent require prompter public disclosure of adverse events. Second, the coupling of gene therapy and xenotransplantation trials entails a conceptual mistake in the types of communities that are harmed by each therapy's related adverse events. Third, all clinical trials merit such public disclosure of adverse events, not only gene therapy and xenotransplantation trials.


2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 23-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole M. DeIorio ◽  
Katie B. McClure ◽  
Maria Nelson ◽  
K. John McConnell ◽  
Terri A. Schmidt

Since 1996, U.S. federal regulations allow research without informed consent to study emergency conditions, if there is currently no satisfactory treatment for the condition, no time to obtain advance consent from the patient or representative, and if there is community involvement through a public disclosure and community consultation process. REB experiences since then are unknown. We surveyed REB chairpersons at the 126 United States medical schools to quantify reviewed protocols and identify attitudes about the rule, to better understand the rule's impact on REBs. Sixty-nine surveys were returned (55%). Fifty-two respondents reviewing human research had heard of the Rule. Forty-eight percent (25/52) had reviewed such a study; 40% of those had rejected at least one. Seventy-eight percent believe the rule protects human subjects, and 88% feel prepared to implement them. REB views differed from public opinion on how best to enact notification and consultation.


Circulation ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 128 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon W. Stephens ◽  
Carolyn Williams ◽  
Randal Gray ◽  
Jeffrey D. Kerby ◽  
Henry E. Wang

2007 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 448-455.e4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua G. Salzman ◽  
Ralph J. Frascone ◽  
Bobette K. Godding ◽  
Terry A. Provo ◽  
Elie Gertner

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maija Holsti ◽  
Roger Zemek ◽  
Jill Baren ◽  
Rachel M Stanley ◽  
Prashant Mahajan ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Makini Chisolm-Straker ◽  
Denise Nassisi ◽  
Mohamud R. Daya ◽  
Jennifer N.B. Cook ◽  
Ilene F. Wilets ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 1005-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon W. Stephens ◽  
Carolyn Williams ◽  
Randal Gray ◽  
Jeffrey D. Kerby ◽  
Henry E. Wang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document