BILL ANALYSIS SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE ANALYSIS Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair BILL NO: SB 1187 S AUTHOR: Strickland B AMENDED: April 29, 2010 HEARING DATE: May 5, 2010 1 CONSULTANT: 1 Tadeo/ 8 7 SUBJECT Human experimentation SUMMARY Extends, until January 1, 2014, an existing exception to the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act, under which medical experimental treatment may be provided to a patient without the patient's informed consent in a life-threatening situation, if prescribed conditions are met. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing federal law: Establishes general procedures and protections pertaining to the use of human subjects in medical experimentation, which includes obtaining informed consent from a subject or a subject's legally authorized representative. Unauthorized medical treatment is punishable by both civil and criminal penalties. Provides a narrow exception to the informed consent requirements if both the investigator and a physician, who is not otherwise participating in the clinical investigation, certify in writing, that specified conditions are met, which includes that a subject is confronted by a life-threatening situation necessitating the use of the experimental treatment. Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1187 (Strickland)Page 2 Existing state law: Provides protections for subjects of medical experimentation and penalties for violations of those provisions under the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act (Act). These protections include: A bill of rights for subjects of medical experimentation, written in a language in which the subject is fluent, and a requirement that the subject receive a copy; A requirement that the subject give a signed, written, informed consent form for the procedures, drugs, or devices that will be applied or taken; A requirement that specified disclosures be provided, including the right to withdraw consent; affiliation and identification of persons conducting the experiment; sponsor funding source or manufacturer of the experiment; and a third party to whom a subject may direct complaints; and, A right to give consent freely and without force, fraud, duress, or undue influence. Establishes that the performance of a medical experiment without a patient's informed consent is punishable by both civil and criminal penalties. Provides an exception from the Act, until January 1, 2011, for any medical experimental treatment that benefits a patient who is subject to a life-threatening emergency, if prescribed conditions are met. These conditions include the following: Care must be provided in accordance with the procedures and the additional protections of the rights and welfare of the patient required by federal regulations; The patient is in a life-threatening situation, necessitating urgent intervention, and available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory; The patient is unable to give informed consent as a result of the patient's medical condition; Obtaining informed consent from the patient's legally authorized representatives is not feasible before the treatment must be administered; There is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1187 (Strickland)Page 3 eligible for participation in the clinical investigation; and Valid scientific studies have been conducted that support the potential for intervention to provide a direct benefit to the patient. This bill: Extends the exception under which medical experimental treatment may be provided to a patient without the patient's informed consent in a life-threatening situation, if prescribed conditions are met, until January 1, 2014. FISCAL IMPACT This bill is keyed non-fiscal. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The author states that researchers in emergency medicine and other specialties are trying to discover better treatments for critically ill patients, including those needing resuscitation due to trauma or cardiac arrest. According to the author, SB 1187 is needed to ensure that critical, life-saving research can continue in California, which will lead to saving lives and providing better emergency care for numerous patients. Emergency clinical trials established by federal regulations In 1996, federal regulations carved out a narrow exception to the informed consent requirements in order to facilitate clinical trials of experimental, life-saving treatments in situations where a patient's condition prevents him or her from providing consent. These federal regulations, which are still in place, impose strict limits on when experimental treatment may be administered without a patient's informed consent in a clinical trial. Among the conditions that must be met for the exception to apply are that participation in emergency research must hold out the prospect of direct benefit to the individual subject. In addition, the sponsor of the research must use available data to identify the specific therapeutic window during which the administration of the treatment to the patient should be initiated. The therapeutic window will vary from study to study and is generally defined as the STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1187 (Strickland)Page 4 time period based on available scientific evidence, during which administration of the experimental treatment might reasonably produce a demonstrable clinical effect. The therapeutic window is important because it is also the window of time during which the clinical physician must make efforts to contact and, if feasible, obtain informed consent from a patient's legally authorized representative. In some cases, such as with patients in cardiac arrest, the therapeutic window may be very short. Institutional Review Board Sponsors of clinical trials generally must submit their proposals for emergency research for which an exception from informed consent is requested to an institution's Institutional Review Board (IRB), which has the authority to review all studies performed at the institution. The IRB must provide an opportunity for community consultation and public disclosure, to generally inform the surrounding communities about the proposed clinical trial, as well as its risks, and potential benefits. The disclosures must clearly inform the community that informed consent will not be obtained for most patients who ultimately received the experimental treatment. The IRB is responsible for listening to and considering the community's opinions and concerns when deciding whether the proposed clinical trial should be modified, approved, or disapproved. When a sponsor receives information regarding these public disclosures from an IRB, the sponsor must submit the information to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which maintains a docket on its website. If a clinical trial is approved by the IRB for patients whose medical conditions prevent them from providing consent, the physician participating in the trial must commit to attempt to seek written informed consent, if feasible, from a legally authorized representative of the patient. If no representative is available, the physician must provide an opportunity for a family member to object to the participation of a patient. The physician must do this before administering experimental treatment without informed consent. IRBs must also ensure that there are procedures in place to provide information about the clinical trial at the STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1187 (Strickland)Page 5 earliest feasible opportunity to the patient, if he or she recovers from the life-threatening condition, or to the patient's legally authorized representative or family member. A patient, or the patient's representative, has the option of discontinuing participation in the clinical trial. State law dealing with exception to informed consent requirements Legislation passed in 1997 created a limited exception to the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act that allows a patient who is unable to give informed consent as a result of his medical condition, to receive experimental medical treatment in a life-threatening emergency, provided specified conditions are met. It contained a three-year sunset to allow for monitoring of the new exception to informed consent. However, the bill contained no reporting requirement and no information was used by, or provided to, the Legislature for the purposes of monitoring the exception. At the end of the three year sunset, the Legislature passed an urgency measure to extend the sunset for the informed consent exception by ten years, also with no reporting requirement. It appears that relatively few clinical trials have been conducted in California using this exception. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration docket contains information on three clinical trials conducted in California between 1997 and 2007 at Glendale Memorial Hospital, UC San Diego, and UCLA. According to a document received from the sponsor of SB 1187, three clinical trials utilizing the exception from informed consent are currently in process in hospitals in California: one is a study to compare the effectiveness of two seizure-stopping medications, at Stanford and UC San Francisco, as well as sixteen other sites nationwide, which is scheduled to end in 2012; another is a study to determine which of two agents is most effective in the treatment of pediatric status epilepticus, at UC Davis, as well as in eleven other institutions, which is scheduled to end in 2011; the third trial is a study on progesterone in the treatment of traumatic brain injury which is beginning in seventeen hospitals in fifteen states, including UC San Francisco, Stanford and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, and is scheduled to continue until 2015. STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1187 (Strickland)Page 6 According to the document, a study on hypertonic resuscitation following traumatic injury was started in 2003 and was conducted in 32 hospitals nationwide, including UC San Diego. The study was stopped by the sponsor in 2009 because the trial showed that the new treatment was no better than the standard treatment, and continued enrollment was unlikely to change the outcome of the study. Impact of a Patient's Do Not Resuscitate Form A Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Form is an official state document, developed by the Emergency Medical Services Authority and the California Medical Association, which allows a patient with a life- threatening illness or injury to forgo specific resuscitative measures that may keep him or her alive. These measures include: chest compressions; assisted ventilation; defibrillation; and, cardiotonic drugs, which stimulate the heart. The form does not affect the provision of other emergency medical care, including treatment for pain, difficulty breathing, major bleeding, or other medical conditions. Many patients make their DNR wishes officially known because they do not want to be placed on life-assisting equipment in the event that their heart or breathing ceases. If a patient has executed a DNR form, it takes precedence over emergency treatment, including treatment conducted as part of a clinical trial. A physician generally must not administer the experimental treatment if he or she knows about the patient's DNR. However, in practice, emergency physicians are not always aware that a DNR exists, and attempt to resuscitate the patient. Therefore, under the exception created by this bill, there could be instances when a patient receives experimental treatment as part of a clinical trial against the patient's wishes to not be resuscitated. Prior legislation SB 1188 (Committee on Health and Human Services), Chapter 122, Statutes of 2001, provides an exception from the Medical Experimentation Act until January 1, 2011, for any medical experimental treatment that benefits a patient subject to a life-threatening emergency that is conducted in accordance with prescribed requirements. STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1187 (Strickland)Page 7 SB 160 (Watson), Chapter 68, Statutes of 1997, provides an exception from the Medical Experimentation Act until January 1, 2001, for any medical experimental treatment that benefits a patient subject to a life-threatening emergency that is conducted in accordance with prescribed requirements. Arguments in support The American College of Emergency Physicians, California Chapter (CAL/ACEP), sponsor of the bill, argues that in an effort to allow clinical research in emergency settings when informed consent is not feasible, the federal government created stringent guidelines to allow for these types of clinical trials. CAL/ACEP contends that SB 1187 is needed to continue to allow life-saving research in life-threatening situations to take place in California. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute (LA BioMed) adds that California law is generally more restrictive than federal law, and may block life-saving research, without the exception that would be extended by this bill. LA BioMed argues that the incompatibility between state and federal law is why the exception to the Act was put into place years ago. The University of California (UC) states that it operates medical centers in Davis, Los Angeles, Irvine, San Diego, and San Francisco and that the UC clinical enterprise is the fourth largest health care delivery system in the state. UC further states that it is one of the largest recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in the nation for cutting-edge research. UC contends that providing complex critical care to California's medically vulnerable population, and undertaking medical research are two of its key missions, and SB 1187 would enable it to continue these missions. The California Hospital Association states that without SB 1187, patients who are unable to give informed consent due to a medical condition will be precluded from receiving what might be life-saving treatment because it is experimental. COMMENTS STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1187 (Strickland)Page 8 1)Bill double referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. This bill was referred to Senate Judiciary Committee which passed it on a 4-0 vote on April 27. 2) An evaluation of the exception should be conducted. The docket information and documents provided by the sponsor listing the current clinical trials does not give enough information for the Legislature to determine whether the exception to the informed consent requirement has been used to successfully administer life-saving experimental treatments, or whether the exception has been abused. For example, there is no specific information regarding treatments used in each trial:the outcomes, the number of patients treated without informed consent, and whether patients actually benefited from the treatment. Conceivably, the research conducted under the exception could have helped save many lives in the past 10 years, but there has not been enough information presented to support any conclusion at this point. As noted, the exception to informed consent that is addressed by this bill dates back to 1997 and SB 1187 represents the second extension of the exception. However, as noted, no formal studies or evaluation of the exception have been made. As a result of the lack of evaluation, the bill was amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee to limit the sunset extension to three years. The sponsors of the bill may wish to consider, for the purpose of future extension of the sunset for the informed consent exception, conducting an evaluation of the clinical trials in which medical experimental treatment without a patient's informed consent in a life-threatening situation was performed. PRIOR ACTIONS Senate Judiciary Committee 4-0 POSITIONS Support: California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 1187 (Strickland)Page 9 (sponsor) California Hospital Association Emergency Nurses Association Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Harbor UCLA Medical Center University of California Oppose: None received -- END --