Therapeutic and Other Misconceptions in Clinical Trials for Paediatric Genetic Disorders

Simon Woods, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Published online: July 2018

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0028016

Abstract

Paediatric research is ethically complex because it involves subjects unable to consent for themselves. As some conditions only affect children, it is necessary to involve children in research so that treatments can be developed. Paediatric genomic research requires parental consent for children with serious, often progressive and frequently life‐threatening conditions. A body of evidence identifies the various vulnerabilities associated with the process of informed consent. Commonly misconceptions about the nature of research, especially those that mistake research for treatment, the ‘therapeutic misconception’, can occur. Serious misconceptions about research potentially undermine the validity of consent. Various factors increase the likelihood of therapeutic and other serious misconceptions, which include the complexity of the research, the timing and context of decisions. Researchers may also contribute to misconceptions, for example by being too optimistic about the benefits of research. Wider factors such as the ‘promissory’ hyperbole that accompanies public discussion of bioscience research also encourage inflated expectations of research. Researchers ought to be conscious of these factors but should not deny parents the opportunity to exercise parental responsibility in giving consent nor deny them the capacity for hope alongside a realistic understanding of the aims and limitations of research.

Key Concepts

  • Informed consent for clinical research is an important ethico‐legal concept, but it is vulnerable to several serious flaws which may undermine the validity of the consent.
  • In research ethics, the ‘therapeutic misconception’ is commonly observed in which research participants falsely believe that the aim of the research is to provide beneficial treatment.
  • Paediatric genomics research is a complex area of research in which appropriate support for parental decisions is needed to help them to navigate complex information and to understand the aims of the research.
  • Clinicians who are also active in paediatric research ought to be aware of the influence they can exert over parents invited to participate in genomics research.
  • A disposition to hope for benefit from research may be an important coping mechanism, for parents and researchers should distinguish between a disposition to hope and a serious therapeutic misconception.
  • Researchers and policymakers should attend to the language they use in the public discussion of developing areas of biomedicine, avoiding ‘promissory’ claims which may encourage a therapeutic misconception.

Keywords: parental consent; therapeutic misconception; therapeutic optimism; hope; paediatric genomics; patient activism; research ethics; informed consent

References

Allmark P and Spedding M (2007) Clinical trials in neonates: ethical issues. Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 12 (4): 318–323.

Appelbaum PS, Roth LH and Lidz C (1982) The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 5 (3–4): 319–329.

Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P and Winslade W (1987) False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. The Hastings Center Report 17 (2): 20–24.

Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW and Grisso T (2004) Therapeutic misconception in clinical research: frequency and risk factors. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 26 (2): 1–8.

Aymé S, Kole A and Graft S (2008) Empowerment of patients: lessons from the rare diseases community. Lancet 371: 2048–2051.

Bavdekar SB (2013) Pediatric clinical trials. Perspectives in Clinical Research 4 (1): 89–99.

Baylis F (2009) For love or money? The saga of Korean women who provided eggs for embryonic stem cell research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (5): 385–396.

Bernstein M (2003) Conflict of interest: it is ethical for an investigator to also be the primary care‐giver in a clinical trial. Journal of Neuro‐Oncology 63 (2): 107–108.

Boycott KM and Ardigó D (2018) Addressing challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of rare genetic diseases. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 17: 151–152. DOI: 10.1038/nrd.2017.246.

Chan SW, Tulloch E, Cooper ES, et al. (2017) Montgomery and informed consent: where are we now? British Medical Journal 357: j2224.

Connor E and Cure P (2011) “Creating hope” and other incentives for drug development for children. Science Translational Medicine 3: 66cm1.

Davies SC (2017) Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2016, Generation Genome. London, UK: Department of Health.

Dawkins HJS, Draghia‐Akli R, Lasko P, et al. (2017) Progress in rare diseases research 2010–2016: an IRDiRC perspective. Clinical and Translational Science 11 (1): 11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.12501.

Denham EJ and Nelson RM (2002) Self‐determination is not an appropriate model for understanding parental permission and child assent. Anesthesia and Analgesia 94 (5): 1049–1051.

Dresser R (2001) When Science Offers Salvation: Patient Advocacy and Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dresser R (2002) The ubiquity and utility of the therapeutic misconception. Social Philosophy & Policy 19: 271–294.

Finkel RS, Mercuri E, Darras BT, et al. (2017) Nusinersen versus sham control in infantile‐onset spinal muscular atrophy. New England Journal of Medicine 377 (18): 1723.

Geesink I, Prainsack B and Franklin S (2008) Stem cell stories 1998–2008. Science as Culture 17 (1): 1–11.

Genomics England (2014). News. http://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/uk‐to‐become‐world‐number‐one‐in‐dna‐testing‐with‐plan‐to‐revolutionise‐fight‐against‐cancer‐and‐rare‐diseases/ (accessed 11 May 2018).

Goodwin MB (2016) Vulnerable subjects: why does informed consent matter? Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 44 (3): 371–380.

Hadskis M, Kenny N, Downie J, Schmidt M and D'Arcy R (2008) The therapeutic misconception: a threat to valid parental consent for pediatric neuroimaging research. Accountability in Research 15 (3): 133–151.

Henderson GE, Easter MM, Zimmer C, et al. (2006) Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials. Social Science and Medicine 62: 239–253.

Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis MR, et al. (2007) Clinical trials and medical care: defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS Medicine 4 (11): 1735–1738.

Henderson RA (2008) Consent, Choice and Children in Research: Exploring Decision‐making by Parents of Children with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Considering Participation in Genetic Research Projects. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Newcastle, UK.

Hogan J (2017) Has the era of gene therapy finally arrived? Scientific American: 3, September 1.

Horng S and Grady C (2003) Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 25 (1): 11–16.

Houyez F (2004) Active involvement of patients in drug research, evaluation, and commercialization: European perspective. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 27 (2): 139–145.

Hyun I and Kimmelmann J (2014) Chapter 36 – ethics in translational gene transfer research. In: Lattime EC and Stanton LG (eds) Ethics in Translational Gene Transfer Research. Gene Therapy of Cancer, pp. 517–526. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.

Ingelfinger FJ (1973) Ethics of experiments on children. New England Journal of Medicine 288 (15): 791.

International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (2017) Press Release IRDiRC Goals 2017–2027: New Rare Disease Research Goals for the Next Decade. 9 August 2017.

Jaffé A, Prasad SA, Larcher V and Hart S (2006) Gene therapy for children with cystic fibrosis – who has the right to choose? Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (6): 361–364.

Jansen LA, Appelbaum PS, Klein WM, et al. (2011) Unrealistic optimism in early‐phase oncology trials. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 33 (1): 1–8.

Kiatpongsan S and Sipp D (2009) Monitoring and regulating offshore stem cell clinics. Science 20: 1564–1565.

Kodish E, Eder M, Noll RB, Ruccione K, et al. (2004) Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 291 (4): 470–475.

Manson NC and O'Neill O (2007) Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Martin P and Nightingale P (2004) The myth of the biotech revolution. Trends in Biotechnology 22 (11): 564–569.

May C (2007) The clinical encounter and the problem of context. Sociology 41 (1): 29–45.

McGuire AL and Beskow LM (2010) Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 11 (1): 361–381.

McKie R (2017) Stunning gene therapy breakthroughs are a riposte to our truth‐tarnished times. The Observer. Sun 17 December 2017 00.05 GMT.

Miller FG and Rosenstein DL (2003) The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials. The New England Journal of Medicine 348: 1383–1386.

Muntoni F (2010) The development of antisense oligonucleotide therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: report on a TREAT‐NMD workshop hosted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), on September 25th 2009. Neuromuscular disorders 20 (5): 355–362. ISSN: 1873‐2364.

O'Neill O (2003) Some limits of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 29: 4–7.

Peay HL, Tibben A, Fisher T, Brenna E and Biesecker BB (2014) Expectations and experiences of investigators and parents involved in a clinical trial for Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy. Clinical Trials 11 (1): 77–85.

Rabeharisoa V (2003) The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the ‘partnership model’ of patient organisation. Social Science & Medicine 57: 2127–2136.

Rabeharisoa V (2006) From representation to mediation: the shaping of collective mobilization on muscular dystrophy in France. Social Science & Medicine 62: 564–576.

RD‐Connect (n.d.) RD‐Connect is an Integrated Platform Connecting Databases, Registries, Biobanks and Clinical Bioinformatics for Rare Disease Research. www.rd‐connect.eu (accessed 11 may 2018).

Reynolds WW and Nelson RM (2007) Risk perception and decision processes underlying informed consent to research participation. Social Science & Medicine 65: 2105–2115.

Samson A, Tomiak E, et al. (2009) The lived experience of hope among parents of a child with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: perceiving the human being beyond the illness. Chronic Illness 5: 103–114.

Shilling V and Young B (2009) How do parents experience being asked to enter a child in a randomised controlled trial? BMC Medical Ethics 10: 1–11.

Simon CM, Siminoff LA, Kodish ED and Burant C (2004) Comparison of the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in pediatric and adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology 22 (13): 2708–2717.

Siminoff L and Simon C (2004) A Comparison of the Informed Consent Process in Pediatric and Adult Oncology. Philadelphia, PA: American Society of Bioethics and the Humanities.

Sugarman J, Lavori PW, Boeger M, et al. (2005) Evaluating the quality of informed consent. Clinical Trials 2: 34–41.

TREAT‐NMD (n.d.) Translational Research in Europe for the Assessment and Treatment of Neuromuscular Diseases. www.treat‐nmd.eu (accessed 11 May 2018).

Williams‐Jones B and Corrigan OP (2003) Rhetoric and hype. American Journal of Pharmacogenomics 3 (6): 375–383.

Woods S and McCormack P (2013) Disputing the ethics of research: the challenge from bioethics and patient activism to the interpretation of the declaration of Helsinki in clinical trials. Bioethics 27 (5): 243–250.

Woods S, Hagger LE and McCormack P (2014) Therapeutic misconception: hope, trust and misconception in paediatric research. Health Care Analysis 22 (1): 3–21.

Woods S (2016) Big data governance: solidarity and the patient voice. In: Floridi L and Mittelstadt B (eds) The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data, pp. 221–238. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.

World Medical Association (2013) WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.

Further Reading

Braude P, Minger S and Warwick R (2005) Stem cell therapy: hope or hype? (Editorial). British Medical Journal 330: 1159–1160.

Chou PHB and O'Rourke N (2011) Development and initial validation of the therapeutic misunderstanding scale for use with clinical trials research participants. Aging & Mental Health 16 (2): 145–153. DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2011.602962.

Durand‐Zaleski IS, Alberti C, Durieux P, et al. (2008) Informed consent in clinical research in France: assessment and factors associated with therapeutic misconception. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: e16.

Giannuzzi V, Devlieger H, Margari L, et al. (2017) The ethical framework for performing research with rare inherited neurometabolic disease patients. European Journal of Pediatrics 176 (3): 395–405. DOI: 10.1007/s00431-017-2852-9.

Hagger L and Woods S (2005) Children in research: a risk of double jeopardy. International Journal of Children's Rights 13: 47–68.

Hens K, Nys H, Cassiman J and Dierickx K (2009) Biological sample collections from minors for genetic research: a systematic review of guidelines and position papers. European Journal of Human Genetics 17: 979–990.

Holm S (2005) Informed consent and the bio‐banking of material from children. Genomics, Society and Policy 1 (1): 1–16.

Horrobin DF (2003) Modern biomedical research: an internally self‐consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2: 151–154.

Tabor HK, Brazg T, Crouch J, et al. (2011) Parent perspectives on pediatric genetic research and implications for genotype‐driven research recruitment. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 6 (4): 41–52. DOI: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.4.41.

Related Sub-Topics:

Techniques and Tools in Clinical Genetics | Genetic Counseling | Bioethics
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Therapeutic and Other Misconceptions in Clinical Trials for Paediatric Genetic Disorders
 
How to Cite close
Woods, Simon(Jul 2018) Therapeutic and Other Misconceptions in Clinical Trials for Paediatric Genetic Disorders. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0028016]