AMERICAN CONFERENCE INSTITUTE12th National Conference On Managing Legal Risks And Conducting Clinical Trials

New York CityFebruary 24, 2010

Michael A. Swit, Esq.Vice President

Ethics in Clinical Trials –The Key Role of Informed Consent

2

Standard Disclaimers

Views expressed here are solely mine and do not reflect those of my firm or any of its clients.

This presentation supports an oral briefing and should not be relied upon solely on its own to support any conclusion of law or fact.

3

What I Will Cover on Informed Consent

Historical Background – Quickly

“Law” of Informed Consent

Implementation Issues

4

Historical Background ofInformed Consent

5

The Nuremberg Code (1947)

First modern ethical code requiring Voluntary consent Benefits outweigh risks Ability of the subject to terminate

participation

6

Declaration of Helsinki (1964)

Recommendations Guiding Medical Doctors in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects Adopted by the 18th World Medical

Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, 1964; revised in Tokyo, 1975; Venice, 1983; Hong Kong, 1989; South Africa, 1996;Edinburgh 2000; Note of clarification on paragraph 29; Washington 2002

7

Helsinki Declaration …

“Concern for the interests of the subject mustalways prevail over the interests of science and society”http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm

8

Beecher Article (1966) “Ethics and clinical research” — Henry

K. Beecher, New England Journal of Medicine 274 (1966):1354-60 22 published medical studies presenting risk to

subjects without their knowledge or approval Published in some of the most prestigious

journals and conducted at some of the most acclaimed institutions by some of the most highly regarded researchers

9

Where the Burden Lies

“The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment.” Principle 1, The Nuremberg Code

10

Where the Burden Lies … “When obtaining informed consent for

a research project, the doctor should be particularly cautious if the subject is in a dependent relationship to him or her, or under duress.” The Declaration of Helsinki “In that case, the informed consent should

be obtained by a doctor who is not engaged in the investigation and who is completely independent of this relationship.”

11

Beecher’s Paradox The Voluntary Consent of the Human

Subject is Paramount Nuremberg

True Informed Consent Is Probably An Unattainable Goal Beecher

12

The Belmont Report

1974 – The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research

1979 – Commission Report – “Belmont” Validates IRB role as a key aspect of subject

protection 1981 – Federal Regulations Revised

“Common Rule” – basically across whole fed. govt.

FDA – some exceptions, minor in nature

13

Where the Regulations Lie HHS – if supported by federal funding

– 45 CFR 116. FDA – 21 CFR Part 50 Differences

Emergency Situations: FDA --an exception from the informed consent

requirements in emergency situations. Based on the Medical Device Amendments of 1976,

but may be used in investigations involving drugs, devices, and other FDA regulated products in situations described in § 50.23.

HHS – no exception

14

Differences – FDA vs. HHS Waivers or altering informed consent elements:

HHS – can waive or alter elements of informed consent under certain conditions.

FDA -- no such provision because the types of studies which would qualify for such waivers are either not regulated by FDA or are covered by the emergency treatment provisions (§ 50.23)

Inspection of records – FDA -- explicitly requires that subjects be informed

that FDA may inspect the records of the study because FDA may occasionally examine a subject's medical records when they pertain to the study.

HHS – while has right to inspect records of studies it funds, it does not impose that same informed consent requirement.

15

Differences – FDA v. HHS … Signatures & Dating on I.C. Forms:

FDA -- explicitly requires that consent forms be dated as well as signed by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.

HHS -- does not explicitly require consent forms to be dated.

16

The Law of Informed Consent – Contract,

Fiduciary Duty, Promise, Pledge or Platitude?

17

Treatment vs. Research – Key Distinction

Law of Informed Consent – must remember that what governs medical treatment is not always same as what governs research

Treatment Doctor – arguably -- is a fiduciary – owes duty to

protect patient Traditional view – unconsented treatment =

battery Causation –

Not disclosed Injured Reasonable Patient would want to know Reasonable Patient would have refused the treatment

– HARD PART

18

How Research Differs from Treatment

Goals – treatment vs. developing generalizable knowledge

How Overseen: Treatment – doctor supplies expertise Research – highly regulated by sources other

than the doctor – protocol and government regulation e.g., if sponsor concludes treatment is ineffective,

must stop research Law – state (treatment) vs. federal

(research) – some exceptions

19

Battery Problem – any failure could be alleged to

be a battery, which is an intentional tort (technically); due to this, courts do not favor it as a remedy

Will occur: Complete lack of consent Procedure given differed from that consented “Ghost Surgery” – undisclosed replacement

surgeon

20

Is the I.C. a Contract Legally Enforceable

by the Subject?

Basic contract law Parties in privity – i.e., two make a deal Legal subject Offer Acceptance Consideration

Problem – lack of privity – sponsor may provide the form, but it is obtained by P.I. from the subject – no privity

21

But, People (Alan Milstein) Still Argue Contracts

Suthers & Abney Cases GNDF trials – discontinued by Amgen as

showing no benefit – thus, required under IND rules

Plaintiffs – you owe us the drug under normal contracts theory and the doctrine of “promissory estoppel” – also a contracts theory Clear promise Detrimental reliance by promisee Damages by promisee

22

Suthers and Abney Decisions No contract

Amgen not a party to I.C., nor was the P.I. an agent of Amgen that could bind Amgen via the I.C.; rather they were “independent contractors” Look at control over the P.I.’s work

Here the protocol drafted by the P.I.

No promissory estoppel Unable to show Amgen promised continued

access

23

Fiduciary? Suthers & Abney – also asserted that

the Amgen was a fiduciary; not found by court Amgen did not set up the clinical initially; no

unique duty owed to subjects or proof that Amgen’s role was done for the benefit on the patients

Note: court suggested that the parties to be bound by contract via the I.C. were the P.I. and the universities where P.I. worked

24

Problems with Fiduciary Theory

Goal of research – generalizable knowledge

Subject is not the prime beneficiary of research – rather it is the public at large

P.I. and sponsor both have less control over the way research is done

25

Informed Consent Implementation

Issues

26

Execution Issues

Documentation -- If it wasn’t written down … It didn’t happen!

Extent of Disclosure -- Sufficient (complete) information to subject to understand

Comprehension – was it understood? Voluntariness – free of coercion and undue influence?

Paper vs. Process – signature not enough, process must be complete so that Principal Investigator has confidence consent was informed

27

90% state they read the consent themselves 8% did not read it and 2% had it read to them

85% understood the number of visits yet 63% understood that the study was blinded

and neither they nor their physician would know which medication they were receiving

60% understood that they could contact someone other than their doctor regarding rights and risks 30% did not understand that the study

carried additional risks and discomforts

Source: 2002 CenterWatch Survey of 1,561 Study Volunteers

Comprehension and Informed Consent

28

Call, e-mail, fax or write:

Michael A. Swit, Esq.Vice President

The Weinberg Group Inc.336 North Coast Hwy. 101

Suite CEncinitas, CA 92024

Phone 760.633.3343Fax 760.454.2979Cell 760.815.4762

michael.swit@weinberggroup.com

www.weinberggroup.com

Questions?

29

About your speaker…Michael A. Swit, Esq., is a Vice President at The Weinberg Group Inc., a premier science-based consulting firm dedicated to helping life sciences firms bring highly regulated-products to the market and keep them there using sound science and cutting-edge regulatory acumen. At The Weinberg Group, he develops and ensures the execution of an array of regulatory and other consulting services to biomedical clients seeking to market products in the United States and Europe. His expertise includes FDA development strategies, compliance and enforcement initiatives, recalls and crisis management, submissions and related traditional FDA regulatory activities, labeling and advertising, and clinical research efforts.

Mr. Swit has been addressing critical FDA legal and regulatory issues since 1984. His multi-faceted experience includes serving for three and a half years as corporate vice president, general counsel and secretary of Par Pharmaceutical, a prominent, publicly-traded, generic drug company and, thus, he brings an industry and commercial perspective to his work with FDA-regulated companies. Mr. Swit then served for over four years as CEO of FDANews.com, a top publisher of FDA regulatory newsletters and other specialty information products for the FDA-regulated community. His private FDA regulatory law practice has included service as Special Counsel in the FDA Law Practice Group in the San Diego office of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe and with the Food & Drug Law practice at McKenna & Cuneo, both in the firm’s Washington office and later in San Diego. He first practiced FDA regulatory law with the D.C. office of Burditt & Radzius.

Mr. Swit has taught and written on a wide variety of subjects relating to FDA law, regulation and related commercial activities, including, since 1989, co-directing a three-day intensive course on the generic drug approval process and editing a guide to the generic drug approval process, Getting Your Generic Drug Approved. A former member of the Food & Drug Law Journal Editorial Board, he also has been a prominent speaker at numerous conferences sponsored by such organizations as RAPS, FDLI, and DIA. A magna cum laude graduate of Bowdoin College, he received his law degree from Emory University Law School and is a member (inactive) of the California, D.C. and Virginia bars.