Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Frameworks and Comparative Effectiveness Research

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Services

Part of the book series: Health Services Research ((HEALTHSR))

  • 207 Accesses

Abstract

The issue of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is assessed from an ethical point of view by comparison with the main ethical frameworks and by analysis of some of the relevant institutional documents. Two main conclusions emerge from the study: no ethical framework seems able to objectively and definitively assess CER; no institutional document, neither national nor international, has specifically assessed the ethical implications of CER. Nevertheless, this vacuum regarding CER raises relevant ethical concerns, thus revealing the necessity and urgency of an ethical evaluation of CER.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anscombe GEM. Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy. 1958;33(124):1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avorn J. Debate about funding comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(19):1927–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bankert EA, Amdur RJ. Institutional review board. Management and function. 2nd ed. Sudbury: John and Bartlett Publishers; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp T, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp T, Faden RR. Informed consent. Meaning and elements. In: Post SG, editor. Encyclopedia of bioethics, vol. 3. 3rd ed. New York: Thompson Gale; 2004. p. 1277–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellah R. Community properly understood: a defense of “Democratic communitarianism”. In: Etzioni A, editor. The essential communitarian reader. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 1998. p. 15–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin M, Curtis J. Ethics in nursing. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger ML, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report – part I. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1044–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. In: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Public Law No. 111–148; section 7001–7003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blajchman M, Carson JL, Eikelbloom JW, Heddle NM, Lacroix J, Lauer MS, Platt R, Tilley B, Triulzi D, Vickers AJ, Yusuf S, Glynn S, Mondoro TH, Wagner E. The role of comparative effectiveness research in transfusion medicine clinical trials: proceedings of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop. Transfusion. 2012;52:1363–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnie S, editor. The Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronaugh R. Contracts. In: Becker L, Becker C, editors. Encyclopedia of ethics, vol. 1. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis; 2001. p. 320–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. 2010. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  • Cecil N. The US, biosimilar act: challenges facing regulatory approval. Pharm Med. 2012;26(3):145–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow S-C, Endrenyi L, Lachenbruch PA, Yang L-Y, Chi E. Scientific factors for assessing biosimilarity and drug interchangeability of follow-on biologics. Biosimilars. 2011;1:13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. 2002. http://www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002.htm. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  • Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of human being with regards to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Strasbourg: Directorate of Legal Affairs; 1996 (DIR/JUR[96]14). http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/html/164.htm. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  • Council of Europe. Additional protocol on the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine concerning Biomedical Research. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2005. http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/195.htm. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  • Council of Europe. Committee of Ministers. Recommendation n. R(90) 3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning medical research on human beings. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 February 1990 at the 433rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. In: Council of Europe. Texts of the Council on bioethical matters. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Directorate General I, Legal Affairs, Bioethics Department; 2005. Vol. 1. p. 25–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels N. Just health care. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1985.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Danner Clouser K, Gert B. A critique of principlism. J Med Philos. 1990;15(2):219–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Biotechnology Ministry of Science & Technology, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Guidelines on similar biologics: regulatory requirements for marketing authorization in India. Government of India. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Docteur E, Berenson R. How will comparative effectiveness research affect the quality of health care? Timely analysis of immediate health policy issues. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty D, Conway PH. The “3 T’s” road may transform US health care: The “how” of high-quality care. JAMA. 2008;299(19):2319–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein S. Manual for research ethics committees. 6th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel E. The ends of human life: medical ethics in a liberal polity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel EJ, Crouch RA, Arras JD, Moreno JD, Grady C. Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research. Readings and commentary. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at Brookings. Implementing comparative effectiveness research: priorities, methods, and impact. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni A. Introduction. In: Etzioni A, editor. The essential communitarian reader. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 1998. p. xi–xxvii.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Medicines Agency. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products. London: EMEA; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezekiel E, et al., editors. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the president and the congress; 2009. https://www.med.upenn.edu/sleepctr/documents/FederalCoordinatingCoucilforCER_2009.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul 2015.

  • Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(3):141–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garattini S, Bertele V. Non-inferiority trials are unethical because they disregard patients’ interests. Lancet. 2007;370:1875–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garattini S, Bertele V. Comparative clinical effectiveness. Eurohealth. 2010;15(4):4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garber AM, Tunis SR. Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N Engl J Med. 2009;360(19):1925–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gert B, Culver CM, Clouser KD. Bioethics: a return to fundamentals. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford F. Community equipoise and the ethics of randomized clinical trials. Bioethics. 1995;9:127–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford F. Freedman’s ‘clinical equipoise’ and sliding-scale all dimensions considered equipoise. J Med Philos. 2000;25:399–426.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon R. Ethics needs principles: four can encompass the rest – and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. J Med Ethics. 2003;29:307–12.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb S. Congress wants to restrict drug access: a bill in the House could tie your doctor’s hands. Wall Street J. 2009. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123241385775896265.

  • Gupta SK. Non-inferiority clinical trials: practical issues and current regulatory perspective. Indian J Pharmacol. 2011;43(4):371–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guyer P. Kant I. In: Craig E, editor. The shorter Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London: Routledge; 2005. p. 488–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs B. Single-principle versus multi-principles approaches in bioethics. J Appl Philos. 2010;27(1):72–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002874.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  • Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E. Involving people affected by cancer in research: a review of literature. Eur J Cancer Care. 2008;17(3):233–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. Learning what works: infrastructure required for comparative effectiveness research – workshop summary Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. Learning what works best: the nation’s need for evidence on comparative effectiveness in health care. 2007. http://www.iom.edu/ebm-effectiveness. Accessed 10 Aug 2012.

  • InterAcademy Council. Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. A policy report. Amsterdam: InterAcademy Council; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Conference on Harmonisation Guidance on Good Clinical Practice. Guideline for good clinical practice. Current Version July 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahr F. Bio-Ethik: Eine Umschau über die ethischen Beziehungen des Menschen zu Tier und Pfanze. Kosmos. Handweiser für Naturfreunde. 1927;24(1):2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson ML, Chitnis AS. Comparative effectiveness research: guidelines for good practices are just the beginning. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(1):51–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen AR. Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics. Theor Med Bioeth. 1991;12(4):295–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kant I. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals (trans: Ellington JW). Indianapolis: Hackett; 1785 [1993].

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlberg JE, Speers MA. Reviewing clinical trials: a guide for the ethics committee. Hong Kong: Karlberg, Johan Petter Einar; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr DJ, Knox K, Robertson DC, Stewart D, Watson R. Clinical trials explained. A guide to clinical trials in the NHS for healthcare professionals. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein HG. Comparative effectiveness research: welcome to the real world. Transfusion. 2012;52(6):1162–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kukathas C. Rawls, John. In: Canto-Sperber M, editor. Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 2001. p. 1338–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohr KN. Comparative effectiveness research methods: symposium overview and summary. Med Care. 2010;48 Suppl 6:S3–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lolas F. Bioethics and animal research: a personal perspective and a note on the contribution of Fritz Jahr. Biol Res. 2008;41(1):119–23.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luce BR, Drummond MF, Dubois RW, Neumann PJ, Jönsson B, Siebert U, Schwartz JS. Principles for planning and conducting comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(5):431–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon D. Utilitarianism. In: Becker L-Becker C, editor. Encyclopedia of ethics, vol. 3. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis; 2001. p. 1737–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn EA, Brook RH. Ensuring quality of care. In: Anderson RJ, Rice TH, Kominski GF, editors. Changing the U.S. health care system: key issues in policy and management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996. p. 142–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn EA, Asch S, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller FG, Brody H. A critique of clinical equipoise. Hast Cent Rep. 2003;33(3):19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Publication OS78-0012. 18 April 1979. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html

  • Nuremberg Military Tribunals. The Nuremberg Code. Trial of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under Control Council Law n. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946 to April 1949. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1949–1953. Vol. 2. p. 181–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passerin d’Entrevès M. Communitarianism. In: Becker L, Becker C, editors. Encyclopedia of ethics, vol. 1. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis; 2001. p. 269–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Public Law No. 111–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino E, Thomasma D. Virtues in medical practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister L. Drug development: a complex and risky but potentially rewarding collaborative process. Eurohealth. 2010;15(4):7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce J, Randels G, editors. Contemporary bioethics. A reader with cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter VR. Bioethics: the science of survival. Perspect Biol Med. 1970;14(1):127–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter VR. Bioethics. Bridge to the future. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Health Service Act. Public Health Rep. 1994;109(4):468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J. The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders C, Girgis A, Butow P, Crossing S, Penman A. From inclusion to independence – training consumers to review research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2008;6:3.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider CK, et al. In support of the European Union biosimilar framework. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(8):745–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schellekens H, Moors E. Clinical comparability and European biosimilar regulations. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010;28:28–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snapinn SM. Noninferiority trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2000;1(1):19–21.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sox HC. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med Care. 2010;48 Suppl 1:S7–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner H. Libertarianism. In: Becker L, Becker C, editors. Encyclopedia of ethics, vol. 2. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis; 2001. p. 976–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taboada P, Cuddeback K. Introduction. In: Taboada P, Cuddeback K, Donhoue-White P, editors. Person, society and value. Towards a personalist concept of health. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2002. p. 1–15.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S. The tyranny of principles. Hast Cent Rep. 1981;11(6):31–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med. 2010;29:1963–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1978. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. DHEW Publication (OS) 78–0012. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making health care decisions: a report on the ethical and legal implications of informed consent in the patient-practitioner relationship. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Paris: UNESCO; 2005. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-human-rights. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Report of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) on consent. Paris: UNESCO; 2008. http://www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001781/178124E.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  • Veatch RM. Resolving conflict among principles: ranking, balancing, and specifying. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1995;5:199–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Voils CI, Maciejewski ML. Challenges and opportunities in comparative effectiveness research. Comp Eff Res. 2011;1:39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. Guidelines on the evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. List of National Ethics Committees. Version of August 2012. http://apps.who.int/ethics/nationalcommittees/NEC_full_web.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

  • World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Current version: Seoul, October 2008. www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm. Accessed 30 Aug 2012.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research Ethic and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Michele Farisco

  2. Biogem Genetic Research Center, Ariano Irpino, AV, Italy

    Michele Farisco

  3. Bioethics Unit, Italian National Institute of Health (Istituto Superiore di Sanità), Rome, Italy

    Carlo Petrini

Authors
  1. Michele Farisco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Petrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Farisco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Health and Epide, Dalhousie University Centre for Clinical Research, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

    Adrian Levy

  2. The University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Boris Sobolev

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Farisco, M., Petrini, C. (2015). Ethical Frameworks and Comparative Effectiveness Research. In: Levy, A., Sobolev, B. (eds) Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Services. Health Services Research. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7586-7_2-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7586-7_2-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7586-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation