The Conduct of Clinical Trials of Treatments during Public Health Emergencies: A Health Policy and Bioethics Consortium

The Conduct of Clinical Trials of Treatments during Public Health Emergencies: A Health Policy and Bioethics Consortium
February 9, 2018, 12:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Room 1010
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

In the past several years, the United States has struggled to respond to viral outbreaks, such as Ebola and Zika.  There is now an awareness of the need to rapidly develop vaccines and treatments for epidemics that can quickly spread from country to country. But questions remain as how to best conduct clinical trials and development of vaccines in the context of an epidemic or outbreak.

Join two health policy experts in examining the appropriate conduct of clinical trials during public health emergencies.

Panelists

  • Susan Ellenberg, Professor Of Biostatistics, Biostatistics And Epidemiology, the Hospital of the University Of Pennsylvania and Director, Biostatistics And Data Management Core, Penn Center For AIDS Research
  • Jason Schwartz, Assistant Professor of Public Health (Health Policy), Yale School of Public Health and Assistant Professor, Program in the History of Science and Medicine, Yale University
  • Moderator: Carmel Shachar, Executive Director, the Petrie-Flom Center, and Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School

Lunch will be provided. This event is free and open to the public.

Learn more about the Health Policy and Bioethics Consortia.

The Health Policy and Bioethics Consortia is a monthly series that convenes two international experts from different fields or vantage points to discuss how biomedical innovation and health care delivery are affected by various ethical norms, laws, and regulations. They are organized by the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School and the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in collaboration with the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Support provided by the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund at Harvard University.

Copenhagen Conference: Legal Perspectives on Synthetic Biology and Gene Editing

Join us at the Centre for Information and Innovation Law (CIIR) Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen on 20 November, 2017 to discuss Legal Perspectives on Synthetic Biology and Gene Editing.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Emerging technologies in Synthetic Biology and Gene Editing offer incredible opportunities and promising solutions to some of the most urgent challenges faced by humanity, such as climate change, environmental protection, growing population, renewable energy and improved health care. But the emerging applications also raise exceptional ethical, legal and social questions.

This conference marks the final phase of the participation of the Copenhagen Biotech and Pharma Forum (CBPF) Research Group at the Centre for Information and Innovation Law (CIIR) in the cross-faculty research project BioSYNergy. In accordance with the goals of this large cross-faculty project on Synthetic Biology, the event explores legal perspectives on synthetic biology, systems biology and gene editing. Dealing with the legal responses to ethical and scientific challenges raised by emerging life science technology. Read More

More on the ECJ Vaccine Liability Decision

By Alex Stein

My friend and mentor, the former Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak, used to say that when neither side likes the court’s decision, chances are that the court was right. This is likely to be the case with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision on vaccine manufacturers’ liability, N.W. et al. v. Sanofi Pasteur MSD, C‑621/15. Popular press reacted to this decision with sharp criticism that included unsubstantiated assertions about the European law of products liability, about what the Court did and did not say, and about the economics of vaccines. My short blog-post, which appeared here, offered a more positive (and hopefully more informative) assessment of this decision and its implications. I argued that the decision was balanced and well grounded in the principles of evidence and products liability. The follow-ups and subsequent analyses that appeared in Nature, Science and Hipertextual (in Spanish) have largely vindicated the decision (while citing some of its critics alongside the decision’s supporters such as myself).

To remove any remaining confusion about the implications of the ECJ decision, I thought I should clarify the Court’s statement that a vaccine liability suit can only succeed when the plaintiff proves that the vaccine complained against was “defective” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Council Directive on products liability (85/374/EEC) (the Directive). Critics of the Court’s decision have uniformly missed this important proviso. Read More

Vaccine Liability in Europe: A New Development

By Alex Stein

Yesterday, the European Court of Justice has issued an important ruling on vaccine manufacturers liability. N.W. et al. v. Sanofi Pasteur MSD, C‑621/15. This ruling triggered a hailstorm of criticism from different media outlets, including CNN. These outlets, however, have largely misreported the ruling and its underlying reasons, partly because of this misleading Press Release issued on behalf of the Court itself. In this post, I analyze the Court’s actual decision and briefly compare it with the American law.

The case at bar was about an adult patient who developed multiple sclerosis shortly after being vaccinated against Hepatitis B. The vaccination he received was manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur. Following the patient’s death from multiple sclerosis, his family filed a products liability suit against the company. The suit was filed in a French court, whose decision on evidentiary matters triggered a series of appeals that brought the case before the European Court of Justice. The Court was asked to determine whether the French evidentiary rule which allows plaintiffs to prove the vaccine’s defect and causation by “serious, specific and consistent evidence” in the absence of medical research in either direction aligns with the European law of products liability. The Court ruled that it does while making a number of clarifications and setting up conditions for such rules being valid under Article 4 of the European Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985. Read More

The Global Virome Project: Understanding Our Viral Enemies to Create a Safer World

We are pleased to present this symposium featuring commentary from participants in the “Between Complacency and Panic: Legal, Ethical and Policy Responses to Emerging Infectious Diseases” conference held on April 14, 2017, at Northeastern University School of Law. The conference was sponsored by the Center for Health Policy and Law and the American Society for Law, Medicine, and Ethics (ASLME), with support from The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. 

By Ana S. Ayala

There is no doubt that viruses, emerging and re-emerging, have become an imminent global health threat. Starting in 2014, we saw the decimation of West African countries as a result of the Ebola epidemic. Soon after came the Zika outbreak that continues to pose a threat to countries in the Americas and around the world. Since December 2016, Brazil has been experiencing a rise in yellow fever cases , and deaths, among humans and monkeys alike. Colombia and Peru have already reported probable cases. As a response to rising human cases of the H7N9 bird flu, China just ordered the closure of all poultry markets in the eastern province of Zhejiang to stop the trade of live poultry.

Experts warn that the question is not whether but when a pandemic will hit. Unknown or little-known viruses currently looming in animal populations undetected pose a especially dangerous risk–we have little to no experience with them, we do not know whether or when they will spill over to humans, and we do not know where they will emerge next. Read More

New Research: Legal Epidemiology in the Literature

It’s a rainy day on the East Coast; what better way to get through the damp than four new legal epidemiology articles? Our colleagues have published papers examining vaccine policies, telehealth reimbursement policies, scope of practice laws for health care providers, and the field of legal epidemiology as a whole:

Legal Epidemiology: The Science of Law
T Ramanathan, R Hulkower, J Holbrook, M Penn – The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

The Latest in Vaccine Policies: Selected Issues in School Vaccinations, Healthcare Worker Vaccinations, and Pharmacist Vaccination Authority Laws
L Barraza, C Schmit, A Hoss – The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Legal Mapping Analysis of State Telehealth Reimbursement Policies
KE Trout, S Rampa, FA Wilson, JP Stimpson – Telemedicine and e-Health

Expanding Access to Care: Scope of Practice Laws
K Hoke, S Hexem – The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Artificial Intelligence and Medical Liability (Part II)

By Shailin Thomas

Recently, I wrote about the rise of artificial intelligence in medical decision-making and its potential impacts on medical malpractice. I posited that, by decreasing the degree of discretion physicians exercise in diagnosis and treatment, medical algorithms could reduce the viability of negligence claims against health care providers.

It’s easy to see why artificial intelligence could impact the ways in which medical malpractice traditionally applies to physician decision-making, but it’s unclear who should be responsible when a patient is hurt by a medical decision made with an algorithm. Should the companies that create these algorithms be liable? They did, after all, produce the product that led to the patient’s injury. While intuitively appealing, traditional means of holding companies liable for their products may not fit the medical algorithm context very well.

Traditional products liability doctrine applies strict liability to most consumer products. If a can of soda explodes and injures someone, the company that produced it is liable, even if it didn’t do anything wrong in the manufacturing or distribution processes. Strict liability works well for most consumer products, but would likely prove too burdensome for medical algorithms. This is because medical algorithms are inherently imperfect. No matter how good the algorithm is — or how much better it is than a human physician — it will occasionally be wrong. Even the best algorithms will give rise to potentially substantial liability some percentage of the time under a strict liability regime.

Read More

Pharmacist Vaccination Laws, 1990-2016

Since the 1990s, there has been a growing movement to improve access to immunization services by giving pharmacists the authority to administer vaccines.

The newest map on LawAtlas.org explores state laws from 1990 to 2016 that give pharmacists authority to administer vaccines and establish requirements for third-party vaccination authorization, patient age restrictions, and specific vaccination practice requirements, such as training, reporting, record-keeping, notification, malpractice insurance, and emergency exceptions.

As of January 1, 2016:

  • Pharmacists were explicitly authorized to administer vaccines in 46 states and the District of Columbia.
  • Thirteen states and the District of Columbia permit exceptions to vaccination requirements for emergencies or epidemics.
  • Ten states grant pharmacists prescriptive authority to administer vaccines (i.e., pharmacists can vaccinate without a third-party authorization).
US map shows every sate except AL, MS, TN, WA have laws
As of January 1, 2016, every state except Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Washington had laws that authorized pharmacists to vaccinate.

The dataset was created by Cason Schmit, JD, Research Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University, and Allison Reddick, JD, MPH, Associate Attorney at Hill & Ponton, PA.

Check out the latest map and data at LawAtlas.org.

Public Health under the Trump Administration

By Wendy E. Parmet

The recent report by the National Center for Health Statistics showing a decline in life expectancy in the U.S. in 2015 highlights a point largely overlooked in post-election discussions about health policy under the Trump Administration. The significant increases in health insurance coverage under the ACA have not resulted in population-wide improvements in life expectancy. This is not because the coverage increases aren’t important; without question they have made a difference in the lives of millions. Rather, it’s because health care plays a relatively small role in determining population-level health outcomes.  More important are the so-called social determinants of health, the “conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live and age, and the wider forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life.” This suggests that the new Administration’s economic, educational, environmental, labor, and housing policies will have more to say about the health of Americans than its proposals for replacing the ACA or reforming Medicare and Medicaid.

Public health policies, and public health law, can also have a major impact on population health. Several years ago, the CDC published a list of the “Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century,” which it credited with adding 25 years to life expectancy in the U.S. The list included immunizations, control of infectious diseases, family planning, reductions in tobacco use, work-place and motor-vehicular safety and safer and healthier foods. These goals and other public health objectives, including reductions in opioid use and obesity, remain paramount to preventing further reductions in life expectancy.

To date, little attention has been paid to the incoming administration’s views on most of these issues. Although Trump has nominated Rep. Tom Price to be Secretary of HHS, he has yet to name his picks for the head of CDC or for Surgeon General. The Trump transition website does not mention public health; nor did many public health issues, other than the opioid epidemic, receive much notice during the election. Read More

Losing the Arms Race: Health Policy and Anti-Microbial Resistance

By Seán Finan

And scattered about it, some in their overturned war-machines, some in the now rigid handling-machines, and a dozen of them stark and silent and laid in a row, were the Martians–dead!–slain by the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared; slain as the red weed was being slain; slain, after all man’s devices had failed…

H.G. WellsThe War of the Worlds  

The WHO World Antibiotic Awareness Week ran from 15-22 November. It coincided with similar European and American initiatives. So, in the interests of raising awareness, I thought I would highlight a few figures.

Photo by Rocky Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIHAntimicrobial resistance currently causes an estimated 70,000 deaths annually. If current practices continue, the death toll is expected to hit to ten million per year by 2050. That works out at about one death every three seconds.

The threat isn’t limited to increased mortality. Anti-microbial resistance could cast medical practice back to turn-of-the-century standards. Turn of the 20th century, that is. Without antibiotics, the chance of infection turns chemotherapy and invasive surgeries into mortal gambles. During these procedures, the body’s immune system is subject to massive exposure and needs antibiotic support. Even ordinary nicks and scratches can lead to fatal infections without effective antibiotics.

So what is antimicrobial resistance? How does it come about? What can we do to combat it and prevent the “antibiotic apocalypse”?

Read More