Development of decision-making considerations to support equitable patient selection in paediatric haemophilia trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Clinical trials for investigational haemophilia treatments such as gene therapy offer a potentially life-changing opportunity to those who are selected for enrolment. However, the number of enrolment slots available for these trials is often greatly exceeded by the number of eligible patients. Many of the strategies that are commonly used to select candidates for participation can be highly unsystematic, inequitable, and subjective. A more rigorous set of criteria is therefore needed to evaluate each candidate's suitability for trial participation in order to eliminate bias in selection and fulfill the ethical principle of justice. Aims To review current knowledge and issues in patient selection for paediatric haemophilia clinical trials with competitive availability, and to develop a more objective standard for decision-making that takes into account the needs of all involved parties. Methods A literature search on the ethics of trial participant selection and the practice of fairly distributing limited medical resources was conducted to identify previous literature and best practices in the area. A list of essential decision-making considerations was then designed to guide the selection of paediatric participants for haemophilia therapy trials through iterative group discussions between a diverse team of health professionals at McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Results Current practices in resolving this ethical issue are highly heterogenous, although there are some common themes and recommendations. The three main criteria supported by the team and the literature search for inclusion in the considerations were: medical need, need for support, and potential safety considerations for the patient. Three measures for evaluating each criterion were developed and added for consideration during the decision-making process. The role of patient selection in meeting the scientific aims of the trial was also considered. Conclusion Attempting to create an equitable, systematic decision-making procedure for clinical trial participant selection involves a wide variety of competing values and ethical considerations, and discrepancies between recommendations are commonplace. The criteria presented here are intended to be used as a guideline to assist the equitable selection of paediatric patients for participation in haemophilia clinical trials with highly limited enrolment, although it may have some applicability to other areas of clinical research or therapeutic areas concerned with the allocation of scarce medical resources. Next steps should involve speaking with patients, community members and other stakeholders in order to include their perspectives. Assessment of medical need, potential support needs, and safety considerations form the basis of criteria for discussions around how to make enrolment in paediatric haemophilia clinical trials more equitable © Shutterstock
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».