FDA dcraps Helsinki Declaration on protecting human subjects

In the mid-1990s, the National Institutes of Health ran a clinical trial in Africa testing whether a new antiretroviral drug to combat AIDS worked to prevent mother-child transmission. The trial created an ethical uproar because the control group received a placebo instead of an older anti-AIDS drug called AZT, which had already been proven successful in reducing the number of babies who contracted HIV from their mothers.

To critics, failure to provide a proven therapy to participants in this and similar trials was a basic violation of standards outlined in the Helsinki Declaration on protecting human subjects in research, originally adopted by the World Medical Association in 1964. But to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the drug industry, to which it had grown increasingly close over the course of the 1990s, it contradicted its longstanding policy of only requiring trials showing that a new drug was "better than nothing," i.e., better than placebo, to win regulatory approval. If the drug industry were to closely adhere to the Helsinki Declaration, it would always have to run comparison trials if an effective drug were already available.

Rather than accede to international norms, the FDA and the U.S. government in the succeeding years lobbied hard to get the WMA to amend its rules. And it has, several times. For instance, it now allows use of placebo-controlled trials for less serious illnesses. But the basic guidelines protecting human trial subjects' access to best available therapies remained intact.

Why is any of this relevant today? Last week, the FDA formally declared that it will no longer require that clinical trials submitted to the agency to get regulatory approval for a new drug adhere to the Helsinki Declaration. The new rule, which goes into effect next October, was supported by the drug industry but opposed by numerous public interest, patient advocacy, and consumer groups. The new rule requires only that trials conducted abroad by drug manufacturers follow good clinical practices (GCP) and include a review and approval by an independent ethics committee. There's nothing in GCP guidelines that requires patients in the control arm of a trial get access to already proven therapies. They only need receive the standard of care in that country.

What will this mean for the concept of "informed consent" in a poor country? Imagine for a moment that you live on $2 a day in, say, Zimbabwe, and have high blood pressure. Since the disease isn't life-threatening, you skip buying the available anti-hypertensives being sold in the village pharmacy because you can't afford them and none are on the national formulary. Hence, there is no local standard of care.

Now say you learn while visiting the village clinic that an international pharmaceutical company is recruiting patients for a clinical trial testing a new anti-hypertensive drug. If you join the trial, you may only get the placebo. But there's a 50-50 chance you will get the new drug, which hasn't been proven yet, but might work.

Are there risks associated with taking this new drug? Well, so far, none that the doctors think are serious enough to cancel the trial. But it says right on the form that something may turn up in the clinical trial in which you are being asked to participate. You sign up. After all, a 50-50 chance of getting a drug that has a good chance of working (the drug industry wouldn't be here testing it if it didn't, right?) is better than no drug at all. And how much risk could there be, anyway?

Is that really non-coerced, informed consent?

It's getting tougher and tougher to recruit patients in the U.S. to participate in clinical trials. It's also getting a lot more expensive for drug companies to run them here. The result is that 35 percent of all trials submitted to the FDA in new drug applications now take place abroad. This new rule will only make that number grow.

Moreover, many of those trials conducted abroad (or about 15 percent of all trials) aren't even be registered with the FDA. Unlike trials conducted in the U.S., companies do not have to submit an investigative new drug application (IND) to the FDA before beginning research in foreign countries. The FDA estimates about 575 of the foreign trials submitted to the agency each year as part of new drug applications do not go through the IND process. In other words, the FDA has no record that they even exist.

The FDA is required by law to monitor clinical trials conducted under INDs to protect their human subjects. But an Inspector General's report released last September found that the FDA had no registry of trials (which was rectified by passage of the FDA reform law last October); no registry of the Institutional Review Boards that were supposed to be monitoring trials conducted under its auspices; and independently monitored fewer than one percent of the trials it knew about.

And now it has passed a rule that increases the likelihood that more trials will go abroad and that more of them will not even be registered with the FDA, which makes them all but impossible to monitor.

In the final rule published in the Federal Register, the FDA rejected the notion that adopting the self-regulating GCP standard and eliminating references to the Helsinki Declaration "will hurt subjects in developing countries or result in less protection for subjects in foreign studies." The agency noted that GCP requires trial sponsors closely monitor trial behavior and report adverse events. If I were a headline writer at the New York Daily News, the headline on that story would have been: FDA to Global Poor: Drop Dead.

What I can't understand is why no one in the U.S. press, including in the medical literature, paid attention to this story in the past year as this change was underway. Has the U.S. become entirely callous about the impact its ill-conceived policies are having on the rest of the world? Or am I off-base and this stuff really doesn't matter.

[ Via: Gooznews ]